Open Theism Discussion Board

Open Theism Discussion Board > Public Forums > Theological Q&A > (No Subject)

Forum Quick Jump

[ << Previous Thread | Next Thread >> | Show Newest Post First ]

susan
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 5

Posted 12/23/2002 1:00 PM (GMT -6)

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by A_Theist:

I put your questions on another message board that has people who are more readily able to answer to you replies than I am--that is the beauty of the internet: to find information that isn't readily accessible to the memory. A theologian, whose site the message board is on, named Greg Boyd replied to your comments:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Great! This is just the sort of interaction that I was looking for. Apparently most of you don’t understand the concept of a “debate”…I stated my view on the subject, then made arguments to support my view. Now that someone has presented an opposing view and arguments to support it, we can get down to business.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. God gave humans "free will". If humans posses free will then god cannot control or predict their actions. By giving humans free will, no matter what the reason, God has forfeited his status as Almighty and All knowing.

Doc:a) BECAUSE God is almighty he can choose to create agents who have power to act, even against his wishes, IF HE CHOOSES To.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the same answer that every Christian, priest, pastor, or minister I’ve ask this question to has given me, nearly verbatim. Unfortunately this is not an “answer” at all, but merely a restructuring of my question into a statement. My retort is as follows:

If you have eyes through which you posses the ability to see, but choose to keep them closed, then you cannot see. The fact that you may still possess the ability to see is irrelevant if you choose not to exercise this ability. If there is anything that God does not know or cannot control, then god is not all knowing or almighty. Whether or not God possesses the ability, but chooses not to know or control these things is irrelevant.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

b) How does creating free agents qualify God's omniscience. It qualifies WHAT God knows, not THAT he knows.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This makes no sense at all. There is no difference between WHAT god knows, or THAT god knows. I assume that what he was trying to say is that God’s omniscience qualifies what god could know, not what he does know. If this is the case then refer to my comments on part A of his response.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Through out biblical texts God continually tests people. An all knowing being would never test because he would already know the answer.
Doc: He tests people to know whether they'll follow him or not. If we are free, this is the kind of thing that doesn't exist to be known until it is resolved.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Exactly!!! Thank you!!! God must test because HE DOESN’T KNOW THE ANSWER. You said it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its no detraction from God's omniscience not to know what agents will freely choose to do.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes it is, once again, if there is anything that god DOES NOT KNOW…then he is not ALL KNOWING. And as you stated, God does not know what agents will freely choose to do.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

3. Angels (part 1). According to the bible God created angels to assist him in performing his functions. If god needs assistance then he is not ALMIGHTY, he may be VERY MIGHTY, but not “ALMIGHTY”.
Doc: Perhaps if God NEEDED assistance. But if God simply WANTS assistance, its hardly a detraction of his omnipotence that he can choose to create agents who can give it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, which is it? Does god “need” assistance or does he just “want” it? My question has been answered with a question…which is not really an answer at all. Personally I don’t see any relevance as to whether god wants or needs assistance, if he has assistance (which we concur that he does) then the problem with his status as Almighty exists. Furthermore why would an ALMIGHTY being WANT help, assistance that it didn’t NEED because it is ALMIGHTY and PERFECT.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

4. Angels (part 2). Unlike humans, God did not create angels with “free will” so it would be impossible for an Angel to dissent from “Gods will”.
Doc: How do you know THIS? The fact that some angels DID "dissent" proves they were free TO dissent.

if these angels possessed the ability to dissent, then they were flawed in their creation therefore God is not PERFECT, God did not predict the “revolt” therefore god is not ALL KNOWING, and since God unable to rectify this flaw in their construction God cannot be ALMIGHTY.

Doc: How is freedom to dissent a "flaw"? Its what it MEANS to be free. And if they are free, its not a flaw of God's omniscience not to know with certain they WOULD dissent.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I’ve had very in-depth discussions with both a Baptist minister and a Pentecostal minister about Angels, the both cited biblical verses which they believe show that Angels did not have free will, I don’t recall them off hand but I will find them and post them later. Even if Angels did posses free will, the main premises of my argument still stand:

If angels were created by god to serve god (as you seem to agree they were), but instead they revolted against god, then they did not perform the function for which they were created, therefore they were FLAWED in their creation.

I believe that you misunderstand the meaning of the term omniscience, it means knowing everything, past, present and FUTURE. If god were Omniscient he would have know that angels would dissent and revolt against him before he created them.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

5. Evil. God created everything. If evil exist then god created evil. God is in constant conflict with evil, he hates it but cannot destroy it therefore god is neither ALMIGHTY nor PERFECT.

Doc: If God creates free agents he creates the POSSIBILITY of evil (choosing against his good desires) but not the actuality of it.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If Evil exists, then God is responsible for it’s existence, be it directly or indirectly makes no difference.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

If he gives freedom, this requires TOLERATING their evil choices (for revoking the choice is to deny that they are free). So God has to war against evil agents with wisdom, not sheer omnipotence. But this is no detraction to his omnipotence, since HE is the one who made them free in the first place.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Make up your mind. Is god “tolerating” evil, or at “war against evil”? Really it doesn’t matter, if God is displeased by evil, and God created evil or even the environment from which evil may form, then God is displeased with his own creation, therefore god cannot be PERFECT…but REALLY, even this doesn’t matter because we keep coming back to the same problem: Free will nullifies omnipotence and omniscience, it makes no difference at all that “God gave free will”. If free will exists then gods’ omnipotence and omniscience cannot.

susan
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 5

Posted 12/23/2002 1:01 PM (GMT -6)

yeah...let me add a little to PunkGrrrl812's arguemnt...not that it really needs it.
The Judeo/Christian "God" is considered to be Omniscient and Omnipotent meaning all knowing and all powerful. These two attributes cannot co-exist in the same entity. Omnicient means you know the past, present, and future. Our existence would be nothing more than a book already written out to the end. Unable to be changed. An Omniscient god can do nothing to change the future or else "it" wouldn't know the future in advance. Knowabilty of future events destroys any idea of free will. Essentially an omniscient being is a powerless being. Omnipotence means a being is able to do anything...unlimited power. If you can do anything, then understandibly you can change future events thru action. The ability to change the future negates any hope of being omniscient. This means that:
(a) God is omnicient and is powerless to do anything. The universe is a tv show and no matter how many advertisers god supports the network will never let him write the script.
(b) God is Omnipotent and doesn't have knowledge of future events, therefore "it" doesn't really know if "it" will ever return in the future to earth, ever do battle with and destroy the evil on earth, or know whether it is immortal or infinite.
(c) God is niether and it's attributes are finite. or,
(d) It doesn't exist.

Another thought is why would an Omnipotent being create humans...Creation of anything is out of a need or desire. If creativity didn't fulfill desires in creators there would be no need for the creation. So does that mean "God" is in need of something?...that doesn't sound like omnipotence to me. If you are Omnipotent why bother creating to fulfill a desire?...cut all the wasted time and energy and destroy the desire with a thought.

Something else I want to mention is I don't really understand original sin. So Adam and Eve we are lead to believe are completely innocent and ignorant right?...like children. Okay, so God tells them not to eat the fruit of knowledge, and the talking snake (love that part) tells them that God is lying and they should eat it. If they are truly innocent and ignorant beings then how could they discern who was telling the truth. What knowledge could they rely on to make the right decision...oh that's right...they didn't have knowledge before they ate the fruit from the tree of knowledge...so why the hell did we get kicked out of eden for an incorrect choice. Not an evil choice mind you, simply a guess as to who is telling the truth! This is kinda like capital punishment for 4 year olds .

Logic does a good job of destroying the idea of a christian god by itself without the need of any other arguement.

[ December 16, 2002: Message edited by: sparkles666 ]

susan
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 5

Posted 12/23/2002 1:03 PM (GMT -6)

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by A_Theist:

Punkgrrl812's objections aren't anything new; I am sure everything she believes right now she got from another source (i.e.,books, school, friends, etc.), so I can't really give her props on something that somebody has already thought of before.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

As I stated very plainly in my original post, I have three principal arguments against Christianity. As of yet we have only touched on a small fraction of just one of these arguments, unfortunately I only have limited access to a computer so I haven’t had the opportunity to really dive into this. As for the nature of my arguments, some of my beliefs (mostly in the historical and psychological departments) are derived from information from other sources (i.e. books, school, friends, etc.), however, all of the points that I have made thus far are purely my own deductions that I have come to after studying the bible and Christianity. I was raised in a Christian household, regularly attended church services and attended a Christian grade school, the better acquainted I became with this religion and it’s doctrine the less sense it began to make to me. This is the basis of the first part of my argument, the logical problems of Christianity, it were these realizations that led me to seek out other sources of information on the matter. Of course, a great many others share the same basic belief as I and they have likely reached their conclusions not through outside influence as A_Thiest suggests, but through the same process as I have: common sense and clear analytical thought. On the other hand, Christians often implore a mechanism to defeat such clear analytical thinking called FAITH, in which event their beliefs are not derived from their own deductions but rather from influences of external sources…..we can discuss this more when I get to my Psychological argument against Christianity. But now, how about a little more of:

LOGIC.
Biblical fallacy

As David Cross muses, it took god 6 days to create the earth….then he got tired and had to rest?
Even otherwise staunch fundamentalist largely accept that the earth was not really created in 6 days, and that the story is somewhat allegorical but either way you look at this there is a problem. First off I believe that the largest reason this is perceived as an allegory or a metaphor is because anyone who isn’t mentally retarded or otherwise of sub-human intellect knows that any literal interpretation of this is completely implausible (and there is also that line about how the lifetime of a man is but a blink of an eye to god …but this raises a whole other series of questions, say perhaps, why god would concern himself with the many trivial aspects of a human life, that to him is as short and insignificant as the “blink of any eye”). The length of time which it took god create the earth is irrelevant, the problem that I have is that if god is “almighty” then why did it take any time at all, why was it necessary to create the elements of earth in the order and stages that he did? Furthermore, why would a being “infinite in all perfections” need or want to “rest” after such a creation. Human creations (as well as humans themselves), however, come to be through a series of stages, a process that has both a beginning and an end…and the story of creation is just one of many in which “god” has accidentally been attributed distinctively human characteristics. Man imagined god creating the world over a period of time in a series of stages because all of mans creations happen in that way, and man imagined god resting because man tires and must rest. Humans have also projected their own process of life and death upon the earth, giving it an immediate creator because they themselves have immediate creators (parents), and like many Christians believe, as their own existences will one day come to an end, so will that of the world witch they inhabit.
There is a lot more to say in this line of argument, but once again I’m out of time…more to come later.

Ps. VloydV and TITAN and anyone else out there who feels like they’ve had enough of this religious debate “shoved down their throats” can FUCK OFF. Nearly every waking moment I’m slipped some more Christian bullshit, on Billboards, bumper stickers, television and radio programs and advertisements, pamphlets, fliers, posters, people at work, people on the street, people on this message board, people and bands at shows….and no one says a word…then the minute that someone puts out a well thought, logical, solid argument against Christianity, all of a sudden everyone’s sick of having religion “shoved down their throats”. Fuck you, if you don’t like it, then don’t read it. If you disagree then I’d love to hear why…we can put each others arguments to the test, maybe you can show me something I’ve never thought of before.

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 12/23/2002 3:23 PM (GMT -6)

Taken from this link:
www.gregboyd.org/gbfront/forum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=1666

Girl:Make up your mind. Is god “tolerating” evil, or at “war against evil”?

Doc: He wars against it because he can't just annihilate it immediately, otherwise he never gave freedom to choose it in the first place.

Girl: if God is displeased by evil, and God created evil or even the environment from which evil may form, then God is displeased with his own creation, therefore god cannot be PERFECT…

Doc: What? God is displeased with his creation insofar as free agents have chosen against him, and he is displeased precisely because he is perfect. A God who was totally cool with (say) our self-chosen violence would not be perfect.

Girl: Free will nullifies omnipotence and omniscience, it makes no difference at all that “God gave free will”. If free will exists then gods’ omnipotence and omniscience cannot.

Doc: One might have thought that a God who couldn't make free agents would lack omnipotence. What omniscience has to do with this isn't clear. If God is omniscient he knows reality exactly as it is, so he knows free agents as free. What's the problem?

I suspect that "Girl" is presupposing that
a) omnipotence means doing everything unilaterally, and
b) omniscience means knowing all that shall take place.

"Girl" needs to give reasons for these assumptions. As they stand, they seem perfectly arbitrary.

Doc

Those would've been the reply's I brought to the other board, but I didn't bother. Who are you by the way?

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/23/2002 3:41 PM (GMT -6)

I'm afraid I got a bit lost as to who's saying what in the various posts. Given time restraints, I'd just like to make a few responses to "Susan." Hi Susan. Nice to have you participating on this board.

a) On omniscience: you are convinced that omniscience means that God knows "the past, present and future." And, on this basis, you rightly argue that this conflicts with some bible passages and with the free will response to the problem of evil.

I agree with you -- IF you assume that omniscience means knowing "the past, present and future." But omniscience just means "all knowing." God knows EVERYTHING. But it doesn't stipulate what the "everything" is that God knows. (This is what I meant when I said that omniscience stipulates THAT God knows everything, but not WHAT God knows.).

Now, the question is, why assume THE FUTURE (defined as what will come to pass) exists to be known? I would argue that it is not "out there" to be known, except as a realm of possibilities. You MAY fly to Mexico next year, you MAY not. But whether you WILL has not (presumably) been resolved yet. So, what exists for God to know is that you MAY or MAY NOT fly to Mexico next year. THAT is what is real. So THAT is what God knows.

If you're interested in this future, I have a book on it entitled The God of the Possible.

2. On omnipotence. Seems to me Susan that on your definition of omnipotence, God COULDN'T create a world where he DIDN'T control everything. You argue that it is an imperfection of God's to create a world where free agents have the power to choose against him. But if this is so, an omnipotent God would be UNABLE to create a world with free agents who had the power to choose fagainst him (and, therefore, the power to choose FOR him). But wouldn't this be a limitation on God?

What if God was bored with determining everything? What if God wanted to be creative and risky and create a cosmos that included agents who could really choose to LOVE (or not). Are you saying he COULDN'T do this?

Hope this helps. Have a nice holiday.

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

susan
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 5

Posted 12/23/2002 7:59 PM (GMT -6)

quote:

I'm afraid I got a bit lost as to who's saying what in the various posts. Given time restraints, I'd just like to make a few responses to "Susan." Hi Susan. Nice to have you participating on this board.

a) On omniscience: you are convinced that omniscience means that God knows "the past, present and future." And, on this basis, you rightly argue that this conflicts with some bible passages and with the free will response to the problem of evil.

I agree with you -- IF you assume that omniscience means knowing "the past, present and future." But omniscience just means "all knowing." God knows EVERYTHING. But it doesn't stipulate what the "everything" is that God knows. (This is what I meant when I said that omniscience stipulates THAT God knows everything, but not WHAT God knows.).

www.selfknowledge.com/65654.htm
Omniscient (Om*nis"cient) (?), a.
[Omni- + L. sciens, -entis, p. pr. of scire to know: cf. F. omniscient. See Science.]

Having universal knowledge; knowing all things; infinitely knowing or wise; as, the omniscient God. -- Om*nis"cient*ly, adv. "For what can scape the eye Of God all-seeing, or deceive his heart Omniscient?" Milton.

-Cambridge Dictionary of American English:
omniscient
adjective
having or seeming to have unlimited knowledge

-Oxford Paperback Dictionary and Thesaurus:
Omniscient
/ m"n s nt/ adjective knowing everything. omniscience noun.

-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
Omniscient
Having total knowledge; knowing everything: an omniscient deity; the omniscient narrator.

-Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
Omniscient (Page: 1002)
Om*nis"cient (?), a. [Omni- + L. sciens, -entis, p. pr. of scire to know: cf. F. omniscient. See Science.] Having universal knowledge; knowing all things; infinitely knowing or wise; as, the omniscient God. -- Om*nis"cient*ly, adv.

-WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University:
omniscient
all-knowing, omniscient -- (infinitely wise)

From http://atheism.miningco.com/library/FAQs/atheo/blfaq_god_omniscience2.htm
Omniscience vs. Free Will
"Another tricky issue is whether or not genuine omniscience is in any way compatible with free will - either ours or the alleged god's. To start with our free will, it has been observed many times that if a god knows the future with infallible certainty, then what this god knows will necessarily happen - there is no possibility for anything else to occur. We are, then, incapable of altering the future. Although the concept of human "free will" is hotly contested, I'm not aware of any theory of free will which could be considered compatible with a being perfectly knowing the future. If a god knows who will win the next presidential election, then it isn't possible for anyone else to win. That's predestination - and some theologians have unflinchingly embraced it, for example John Calvin.
…others reach for a more popular solution, namely to argue that their god has a "limited omniscience." This god knows everything, where everything means only what it can logically know. Everything doesn't really mean "everything" anymore - instead it means a limited but not yet defined set of things which will become more limited as more problems with the concept of omniscience are discovered.
Thus, certain realms of knowledge are closed to the supposedly "omniscient" god. We will revisit this again later, but from the outset it seems clear that a "limited omniscience" linguistically nonsensical. The word "limited" and the prefix "omni-" logically contradict each other. If a god is in any fashion limited in its knowledge, then it isn't really omniscient - and to say that it is becomes an exercise in confusion, if not deception."

Ok Greg, here are the definitions of Omniscient from a variety of sources, not just my "assumption" of its meaning. There are a number of terms used to describe this word that it seems you have not paid particular attention to: universal, infinite, unlimited, all, total and everything. Each of these terms relates to something that is WITH OUT BOUNDARIES or LIMITATIONS. The god that you believe in, however, cannot be truly defined with such words if there are, as you say, boundaries and limitations to his knowledge and power….and this god is not the god that is defined in the Bible as “infinite in all perfections”, “all knowing”, and “almighty”.

Then of course you will tell me that THE FUTURE does not exist, therefore it cannot be known (a concept with which I whole heartedly agree)….

quote:

Now, the question is, why assume THE FUTURE (defined as what will come to pass) exists to be known? I would argue that it is not "out there" to be known, except as a realm of possibilities. You MAY fly to Mexico next year, you MAY not. But whether you WILL has not (presumably) been resolved yet. So, what exists for God to know is that you MAY or MAY NOT fly to Mexico next year. THAT is what is real. So THAT is what God knows.

….however, this idea then poses us with a great problem concerning PROPHETS and PROPHECIES…for as you yourself stated, if the future does not exist, then it cannot be seen. You then consequently admit that prophecies cannot truly be made, and that ones who claim to be prophets must then also be liars. If true prophecies cannot be made, because the “future does not exist to be known”, then all prophecies must be false. If the bible contains prophecies, then the bible too must be false.

quote:
2. On omnipotence. Seems to me Susan that on your definition of omnipotence, God COULDN'T create a world where he DIDN'T control everything.

-Cambridge Dictionary of American English:
omnipotent
adjective [not gradable]
having the power to do anything
-Oxford Paperback Dictionary and Thesaurus:
om·nip·o·tent adj.
/ m"n p t( )nt/ adjective all-powerful. omnipotence noun.
·all-powerful, almighty, invincible, supreme, unconquerable.
-The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition:
om·nip·o·tent adj.
Having unlimited or universal power, authority, or force; all-powerful
-Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary:
omnipotent
\Om*nip"o*tent\, a. [F., fr.L. omnipotens, -entis; omnis all + potens powerful, potent. See Potent.] 1. Able in every respect and for every work; unlimited in ability; all-powerful; almighty
-WordNet ® 1.6, © 1997 Princeton University:
omnipotent
adj : having unlimited power [syn: almighty, all-powerful]

From the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/omnipotence/
“Power should be distinguished from ability. Power is ability plus opportunity: a being having maximal ability who is prevented by circumstances from exercising those abilities would not be omnipotent. Nothing could prevent an omnipotent agent from exercising its powers, if it were to endeavor to do so.
It has been argued that the traditional God has incompatible attributes, namely, necessary existence, essential omnipotence, essential omniscience, and essential moral perfection. The contention has been that it is impossible for God to have the power to bring about evil, while non-omnipotent (and morally imperfect) beings may have this power. The precise form of such an argument varies depending on what precisely the relation between God and evil is assumed to be. However, generally speaking, it is argued that divine moral perfection and omnipotence are incompatible because divine omnipotence entails that God has the power to bring about evil, whereas divine moral perfection entails that God is powerless to bring about evil.”

Alright, now we’re not just dealing with my definition of omnipotence.

From The Catholic Encyclopedia
“Omnipotence is the power of God to effect whatever is not intrinsically impossible.
As intrinsically impossible must be classed:
1. Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes;
2. Any action that would simultaneously connote mutually repellent elements, e.g. a square circle, an infinite creature, etc. “
Alright, now we’re not just dealing with my definition of omnipotence.

quote:
You argue that it is an imperfection of God's to create a world where free agents have the power to choose against him. But if this is so, an omnipotent God would be UNABLE to create a world with free agents who had the power to choose against him (and, therefore, the power to choose FOR him).

Exactly my point! That god would be “unable” to create such beings, in wich case such a god could not exist.

quote:
But wouldn't this be a limitation on God?

The only definition above for omnipotent that places any boundaries or limitations on the abilities of god is that from the Catholic Encyclopedia, which states that “Any action on the part of God which would be out of harmony with His nature and attributes” is “intrinsically impossible”. Even with this allowance, however, the definition of omnipotent still directly contradicts the belief you have that: “god could choose to limit his own capabilities by creating agents with free will”, in that omnipotence is a distinctive and definitive attribute of god and omnipotence means having “unlimited” power…so it would be effectively impossible for a being with unlimited “infinite” power to take any action which would then cause it to be limited, or finite in power…hence defeating its own omnipotence.

quote:

What if God was bored with determining everything? What if God wanted to be creative and risky and create a cosmos that included agents who could really choose to LOVE (or not). Are you saying he COULDN'T do this?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

quote:

Hope this helps. Have a nice holiday.

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

It has helped a lot, I still don’t agree with you at all but I do feel that I’m coming to a better understanding of my own views while arguing them.

So thanks, seriously…and have a nice Wednesday.

Susan.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/23/2002 8:27 PM (GMT -6)

[Susan: Greg, here are the definitions of Omniscient from a variety of sources, not just my "assumption" of its meaning. There are a number of terms used to describe this word that it seems you have not paid particular attention to: universal, infinite, unlimited, all, total and everything. Each of these terms relates to something that is WITH OUT BOUNDARIES or LIMITATIONS. The god that you believe in, however, cannot be truly defined with such words if there are, as you say, boundaries and limitations to his knowledge and power….and this god is not the god that is defined in the Bible as "infinite in all perfections", "all knowing", and "almighty".

Doc: Susan, I am not denyhing that God’s knowledge is universal, infinite, unlimited, all, total and everything. I am not affirming that there are ANY boundaries on God’s knowledge. If the future existed as settled fact, God would know it. I’m simply denying that the future exists as settled fact. This is no more a limitation on God than (say) the fact that he doesn’t know unicorns exist. He doesn’t know unicorns exist because they DON’T. He doesn’t know the future as settled fact because IT DOESN’T exist to be known.

Susan: this idea then poses us with a great problem concerning PROPHETS and PROPHECIES…for as you yourself stated, if the future does not exist, then it cannot be seen. You then consequently admit that prophecies cannot truly be made, and that ones who claim to be prophets must then also be liars. If true prophecies cannot be made, because the "future does not exist to be known", then all prophecies must be false.

Doc: I and others have written a lot about this (e.g. see my God of the Possible or John Sanders The God Who Risks) and we’ve talked about it a lot on this board over the years. Very briefly:
a) most biblical prophecies are warnings about what WILL happen IF things don’t change.
b) some biblical prophecies are about what GOD HIMSELF is going to do or bring about, hence he knows it as settled fact.
c) some biblical prophecies are predictions of future things BASED ON PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES.
*** In my view, NO biblical prophecies are simply peering into a crystal ball and seeing the whole future "out there" as already existing as settled fact.

Susan: it is argued that divine moral perfection and omnipotence are incompatible because divine omnipotence entails that God has the power to bring about evil, whereas divine moral perfection entails that God is powerless to bring about evil."

Doc: God has the POWER to bring about evil, but the character not to do it. What’s contradictory about this?

Susan: (In response to my ooint that if omnipotence meant what Susan thinks it means, God would be unable to create a world in which there are free agents). Exactly my point! That god would be "unable" to create such beings, in wich case such a god could not exist.

Doc: Susan, you’re argument here is very circular. You presuppose that omnipotence means God has to DO everything, and then argue that the concept is unintelligible because it means God is UNABLE to create free beings. But why not argue it in the other direction. That is, since an omnipotent being WOULD be able to create free agents, this proves that omnipotence CAN’T mean that God must DO everything himself.

I like you’re questions Susan. You probably know by now that I am a convinced Christian and would very much like to convince you of the same. I believe faith in Jesus Christ is the most rational philosophy to hold in life. I believe it is saving. And know it to be life transforming and life giving. I quite frankly love to see people enter into this. And, to put all the cards on the table, I’m hoping you someday come to share it.

Blessings.

Greg

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Electra
Registered Member

Date Joined Feb 2002
Total Posts : 611

Posted 12/24/2002 8:14 AM (GMT -6)

Hi Susan, glad you’re on board. I wish I had something deep to say, but I don’t. I’m very interested in your dialogue with Doc. Electra

Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons. Matt. 10:8

sparkles
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 1

Posted 12/25/2002 6:42 PM (GMT -6)

I have been watching this thread for a little while and decided to jump in and add my two cents. So far I tend to agree with Susan.

It seems in order to make the characteristic of Omniscience fit with the idea of God, you have to redefine the word "Omniscience." Dumbing it down to a "god knows all there is to know" sort of logic. And since the future isn't knowable, god can't possess that knowledge. Therefore God wouldn't know the outcome of any future event. I just don't think redefining words is a valid argument. Omniscience means precisely what Susan stated in her post. I will give you the fact that your god that doesn't possess infinite knowledge could exist, but I can't give you the "Omniscience" as a description...invent a new word, give that your definition of "highest possible limited knowledge" and then we can move off this subject.

Now...your defense doesn't seem to change for Prophecy either. I will be the first to admit I haven't read any of the in depth articles on this topic that you mentioned, so if my opinion has been addressed in those papers please let me know, and I will try to read them.

quote:

a) most biblical prophecies are warnings about what WILL happen IF things don’t change.

My dad use to say "if you don't be quiet Im gonna smack ya"...so that would be prophecy...right?

quote:

b) some biblical prophecies are about what GOD HIMSELF is going to do or bring about, hence he knows it as settled fact.

"I'm going to eat this twinkie and watch cartoons"...this is prophetic also right?

quote:
c) some biblical prophecies are predictions of future things BASED ON PRESENT CIRCUMSTANCES.

okay...I see a squirrel run across some powerlines outside my window...He slips...He falls...before he hits the ground I think "he's gonnd hit the ground"...am I a prophet?

This is why I don't think you should be changing definitions...Prophecy is "knowledge of the future"...you seem to be defining it to mean more of a plan or educated guess:
a)God "plans" to send and Angel from heaven to stop some catastrophie.
b)God "plans" on defeating satan in the big war and the end of the earth age.
c)God makes an educated guess as to the outcome of some future event by looking at the current state of affairs.

I will give you this arguement too if you admit that this is not prophecy and you invent another new word that you can define however you want to explain gods knowledge of the future which doesn't exist.
That's just my thoughts on this subject so far.

Edited by - sparkles on 12/26/2002 12:31:33 AM

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 12/25/2002 7:41 PM (GMT -6)

Welcome aboard Sparkles.

There is no disagreement with us (or Susan) on the meaning of the word "omniscience." Omni - all. science = knowledge. All knowing. Now, maybe you and Susan and many others have ASSUMED that the future exists as settled, and therefore is part of what God knows in being all knowing. But if someone (such as myself) disagrees with you about the nature of the future, you can't justifiably accuse them of denying omniscience.

As to predictive prophecy, Sparkles, I'm afraid you're argument doesn't work well. You show instances where a human can give warnings, inferences from present circumstances, or say what they're going to do, and since in my view prophecy is about GOD doing these things, you argue I'm denying prophecy. But in YOUR view prophecy is saying what's going to happen. Yet, surely humans do this sometimes as well. Here's some: I will sleep tonight. Planes will fly tomorrow. The sun will rise. etc... Does the fact that I can tell the future mean that its no prophecy when GOD can tell the future?

The thing that distinguishes prophecy from ordinary predictions about the future -- and warnings, inferences and declarations of intent -- is that it is GOD who does it, and THE SCOPE of his knowledge, and thus THE EXTENT of his predictions (and warnings, inferences and declarations) FAR EXCEEDS what humans can do under ordinary circumstances.

So, I stand by my use of "omniscience" and a'prophecy." Indeed, I would argue that not only is my usage justified: it is THE WAY THE BIBLE speaks about these subjects.

Blessings
Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

a_theist
"Thy will be done."

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 286

Posted 12/25/2002 8:41 PM (GMT -6)

*claps* I couldn't have (or would've) said it better myself.

"The Creator's power (by which I mean the capacity to influence the world) is made manifest paradoxically in the vulnerable defenselessness of crucified man."
-John F. Haught

susan
Registered Member

Date Joined Dec 2002
Total Posts : 5

Posted 1/5/2003 10:16 AM (GMT -6)

Hello greg and friends, sorry for my long absence but some times the real world takes precedence over the virtual world of the internet and message boards. I still have some big problems with gregs idea of prophecies, and I’ll get to those very soon, but in the mean time here’s a little zinger from another site:

Leave No Stone Unturned: An Easter Challenge For Christians
I have an Easter challenge for Christians. My challenge is simply this: tell me what happened on Easter. I am not asking for proof. My straightforward request is merely that Christians tell me exactly what happened on the day that their most important doctrine was born.
Believers should eagerly take up this challenge, since without the resurrection, there is no Christianity. Paul wrote, "And if Christ be not risen, then is our preaching vain, and your faith is also vain. Yea, and we are found false witnesses of God; because we have testified of God that he raised up Christ: whom he raised not up, if so be that the dead rise not." (I Corinthians 15:14-15)
The conditions of the challenge are simple and reasonable. In each of the four Gospels, begin at Easter morning and read to the end of the book: Matthew 28, Mark 16, Luke 24, and John 20-21. Also read Acts 1:3-12 and Paul's tiny version of the story in I Corinthians 15:3-8. These 165 verses can be read in a few moments. Then, without omitting a single detail from these separate accounts, write a simple, chronological narrative of the events between the resurrection and the ascension: what happened first, second, and so on; who said what, when; and where these things happened.
Since the gospels do not always give precise times of day, it is permissible to make educated guesses. The narrative does not have to pretend to present a perfect picture--it only needs to give at least one plausible account of all of the facts. Additional explanation of the narrative may be set apart in parentheses. The important condition to the challenge, however, is that not one single biblical detail be omitted. Fair enough?
I have tried this challenge myself. I failed. An Assembly of God minister whom I was debating a couple of years ago on a Florida radio show loudly proclaimed over the air that he would send me the narrative in a few days. I am still waiting. After my debate at the University of Wisconsin, "Jesus of Nazareth: Messiah or Myth," a Lutheran graduate student told me he accepted the challenge and would be contacting me in about a week. I have never heard from him. Both of these people, and others, agreed that the request was reasonable and crucial. Maybe they are slow readers.
Many bible stories are given only once or twice, and are therefore hard to confirm. The author of Matthew, for example, was the only one to mention that at the crucifixion dead people emerged from the graves of Jerusalem, walking around showing themselves to everyone--an amazing event that could hardly escape the notice of the other Gospel writers, or any other historians of the period. But though the silence of others might weaken the likelihood of a story, it does not disprove it. Disconfirmation comes with contradictions.
Thomas Paine tackled this matter two hundred years ago in The Age of Reason, stumbling across dozens of New Testament discrepancies:
"I lay it down as a position which cannot be controverted," he wrote, "first, that the agreement of all the parts of a story does not prove that story to be true, because the parts may agree and the whole may be false; secondly, that the disagreement of the parts of a story proves the whole cannot be true."
Since Easter is told by five different writers, it gives one of the best chances to confirm or disconfirm the account. Christians should welcome the opportunity.
One of the first problems I found is in Matthew 28:2, after two women arrived at the tomb: "And, behold, there was a great earthquake: for the angel of the Lord descended from heaven, and came and rolled back the stone from the door, and sat upon it." (Let's ignore the fact that no other writer mentioned this "great earthquake.") This story says that the stone was rolled away after the women arrived, in their presence.
Yet Mark's Gospel says it happened before the women arrived: "And they said among themselves, Who shall roll away the stone from the door of the sepulchre? And when they looked, they saw that the stone was rolled away: for it was very great."
Luke writes: "And they found the stone rolled away from the sepulchre." John agrees. No earthquake, no rolling stone. It is a three-to-one vote: Matthew loses. (Or else the other three are wrong.) The event cannot have happened both before and after they arrived.
Some bible defenders assert that Matthew 28:2 was intended to be understood in the past perfect, showing what had happened before the women arrived. But the entire passage is in the aorist (past) tense, and it reads, in context, like a simple chronological account. Matthew 28:2 begins, "And, behold," not "For, behold." If this verse can be so easily shuffled around, then what is to keep us from putting the flood before the ark, or the crucifixion before the nativity?
Another glaring problem is the fact that in Matthew the first post-resurrection appearance of Jesus to the disciples happened on a mountain in Galilee (not in Jerusalem, as most Christians believe), as predicted by the angel sitting on the newly moved rock: "And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead; and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him." This must have been of supreme importance, since this was the message of God via the angel(s) at the tomb. Jesus had even predicted this himself sixty hours earlier, during the Last Supper (Matthew 26:32).
After receiving this angelic message, "Then the eleven disciples went away into Galilee, into a mountain where Jesus had appointed them. And when they saw him, they worshipped him: but some doubted." (Matthew 28:16-17) Reading this at face value, and in context, it is clear that Matthew intends this to have been the first appearance. Otherwise, if Jesus had been seen before this time, why did some doubt?
Mark agrees with Matthew's account of the angel's Galilee message, but gives a different story about the first appearance. Luke and John give different angel messages and then radically contradict Matthew. Luke shows the first appearance on the road to Emmaus and then in a room in Jerusalem. John says it happened later than evening in a room, minus Thomas. These angel messages, locations, and travels during the day are impossible to reconcile.
Believers sometimes use the analogy of the five blind men examining an elephant, all coming away with a different definition: tree trunk (leg), rope (tail), hose (trunk), wall (side), and fabric (ear). People who use this argument forget that each of the blind men was wrong: an elephant is not a rope or a tree. You can put the five parts together to arrive at a noncontradictory aggregate of the entire animal. This hasn't been done with the resurrection.
Another analogy sometimes used by apologists is comparing the resurrection contradictions to differing accounts given by witnesses of an auto accident. If one witness said the vehicle was green and the other said it was blue, that could be accounted for by different angles, lighting, perception, or definitions of words. The important thing, they claim, is that they do agree on the basic story--there was an accident, there was a resurrection.
I am not a fundamentalist inerrantist. I'm not demanding that the evangelists must have been expert, infallible witnesses. (None of them claims to have been at the tomb itself, anyway.) But what if one person said the auto accident happened in Chicago and the other said it happened in Milwaukee? At least one of these witnesses has serious problems with the truth.
Luke says the post-resurrection appearance happened in Jerusalem, but Matthew says it happened in Galilee, sixty to one hundred miles away! Could they all have traveled 150 miles that day, by foot, trudging up to Galilee for the first appearance, then back to Jerusalem for the evening meal? There is no mention of any horses, but twelve well-conditioned thoroughbreds racing at breakneck speed, as the crow flies, would need about five hours for the trip, without a rest. And during this madcap scenario, could Jesus have found time for a leisurely stroll to Emmaus, accepting, "toward evening," an invitation to dinner? Something is very wrong here.
This is just the tip of the iceberg. Of course, none of these contradictions prove that the resurrection did not happen, but they do throw considerable doubt on the reliability of the supposed witnesses. Some of them were wrong. Maybe they were all wrong.
This challenge could be harder. I could ask why reports of supernatural beings, vanishing and materializing out of thin air, long-dead corpses coming back to life, and people levitating should be given serious consideration at all. Thomas Paine was one of the first to point out that outrageous claims require outrageous proof.
Protestants and Catholics seem to have no trouble applying healthy skepticism to the miracles of Islam, or to the "historical" visit between Joseph Smith and the angel Moroni. Why should Christians treat their own outrageous claims any differently? Why should someone who was not there be any more eager to believe than doubting Thomas, who lived during that time, or the other disciples who said that the women's news from the tomb "seemed to them as idle tales, and they believed them not" (Luke 24:11)?
Paine also points out that everything in the bible is hearsay. For example, the message at the tomb (if it happened at all) took this path, at minimum, before it got to our eyes: God, angel(s), Mary, disciples, Gospel writers, copyists, translators. (The Gospels are all anonymous and we have no original versions.)
But first things first: Christians, either tell me exactly what happened on Easter Sunday, or let's leave the Jesus myth buried next to Eastre (Ishtar, Astarte), the pagan Goddess of Spring after whom your holiday was named.

Here are some of the discrepancies among the resurrection accounts:
What time did the women visit the tomb?
• Matthew: "as it began to dawn" (28:1)
• Mark: "very early in the morning . . . at the rising of the sun" (16:2, KJV); "when the sun had risen" (NRSV); "just after sunrise" (NIV)
• Luke: "very early in the morning" (24:1, KJV) "at early dawn" (NRSV)
• John: "when it was yet dark" (20:1)
Who were the women?
• Matthew: Mary Magdalene and the other Mary (28:1)
• Mark: Mary Magdalene, the mother of James, and Salome (16:1)
• Luke: Mary Magdalene, Joanna, Mary the mother of James, and other women (24:10)
• John: Mary Magdalene (20:1)
What was their purpose?
• Matthew: to see the tomb (28:1)
• Mark: had already seen the tomb (15:47), brought spices (16:1)
• Luke: had already seen the tomb (23:55), brought spices (24:1)
• John: the body had already been spiced before they arrived (19:39,40)
Was the tomb open when they arrived?
• Matthew: No (28:2)
• Mark: Yes (16:4)
• Luke: Yes (24:2)
• John: Yes (20:1)
Who was at the tomb when they arrived?
• Matthew: One angel (28:2-7)
• Mark: One young man (16:5)
• Luke: Two men (24:4)
• John: Two angels (20:12)
Where were these messengers situated?
• Matthew: Angel sitting on the stone (28:2)
• Mark: Young man sitting inside, on the right (16:5)
• Luke: Two men standing inside (24:4)
• John: Two angels sitting on each end of the bed (20:12)
What did the messenger(s) say?
• Matthew: "Fear not ye: for I know that ye seek Jesus, which was crucified. He is not here for he is risen, as he said. Come, see the place where the Lord lay. And go quickly, and tell his disciples that he is risen from the dead: and, behold, he goeth before you into Galilee; there shall ye see him: lo, I have told you." (28:5-7)
• Mark: "Be not afrighted: Ye seek Jesus of Nazareth, which was crucified: he is risen; he is not here: behold the place where they laid him. But go your way, tell his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilee: there shall ye see him, as he said unto you." (16:6-7)
• Luke: "Why seek ye the living among the dead? He is not here, but is risen: remember how he spake unto you when he was yet in Galilee, Saying, The Son of man must be delivered into the hands of sinful men, and be crucified, and the third day rise again." (24:5-7)
• John: "Woman, why weepest thou?" (20:13)
Did the women tell what happened?
• Matthew: Yes (28:8)
• Mark: No. "Neither said they any thing to any man." (16:8)
• Luke: Yes. "And they returned from the tomb and told all these things to the eleven, and to all the rest." (24:9, 22-24)
• John: Yes (20:18)
When Mary returned from the tomb, did she know Jesus had been resurrected?
• Matthew: Yes (28:7-8)
• Mark: Yes (16:10,11)
• Luke: Yes (24:6-9,23)
• John: No (20:2)
When did Mary first see Jesus?
• Matthew: Before she returned to the disciples (28:9)
• Mark: Before she returned to the disciples (16:9,10)
• John: After she returned to the disciples (20:2,14)
Could Jesus be touched after the resurrection?
• Matthew: Yes (28:9)
• John: No (20:17), Yes (20:27)
After the women, to whom did Jesus first appear?
• Matthew: Eleven disciples (28:16)
• Mark: Two disciples in the country, later to eleven (16:12,14)
• Luke: Two disciples in Emmaus, later to eleven (24:13,36)
• John: Ten disciples (Judas and Thomas were absent) (20:19, 24)
• Paul: First to Cephas (Peter), then to the twelve. (Twelve? Judas was dead). (I Corinthians 15:5)
Where did Jesus first appear to the disciples?
• Matthew: On a mountain in Galilee (60-100 miles away) (28:16-17)
• Mark: To two in the country, to eleven "as they sat at meat" (16:12,14)
• Luke: In Emmaus (about seven miles away) at evening, to the rest in a room in Jerusalem later that night. (24:31, 36)
• John: In a room, at evening (20:19)
Did the disciples believe the two men?
• Mark: No (16:13)
• Luke: Yes (24:34--it is the group speaking here, not the two)
What happened at the appearance?
• Matthew: Disciples worshipped, some doubted, "Go preach." (28:17-20)
• Mark: Jesus reprimanded them, said "Go preach" (16:14-19)
• Luke: Christ incognito, vanishing act, materialized out of thin air, reprimand, supper (24:13-51)
• John: Passed through solid door, disciples happy, Jesus blesses them, no reprimand (21:19-23)
Did Jesus stay on earth for a while?
• Mark: No (16:19) Compare 16:14 with John 20:19 to show that this was all done on Sunday
• Luke: No (24:50-52) It all happened on Sunday
• John: Yes, at least eight days (20:26, 21:1-22)
• Acts: Yes, at least forty days (1:3)
Where did the ascension take place?
• Matthew: No ascension. Book ends on mountain in Galilee
• Mark: In or near Jerusalem, after supper (16:19)
• Luke: In Bethany, very close to Jerusalem, after supper (24:50-51)
• John: No ascension
• Paul: No ascension
• Acts: Ascended from Mount of Olives (1:9-12)

This first appeared in Freethought Today, March, 1990
© Copyright 1990 by Dan Barker. All Rights Reserved.

GregBoyd
Registered Member

Date Joined Jul 2001
Total Posts : 1818

Posted 1/6/2003 4:10 AM (GMT -6)

A few quick comments:

1. What I’d like to know is how those who DENY the resurrection explain "what happened" on Easter morning. How do we account for a band of disciples dedicating their life to preaching the resurrection in a hostile environment if it didn’t happen?

2. The differences among the accounts demonstrates that we are dealing with relatively independent traditions here. So we have to account not just for how ONE story got created, and believed, but how FIVE stories got created, and believed.

3. Is there ANY event in history about which we have multiple accounts where we don’t find exactly the sort of disagreements we find in the Gospels? JFK’s assination; Hannibuls crossing the Alps, the sinking of the Titanic… discrepancies, among eyewitnesses, all over the place. Yet no one doubts JFK was assinated, that Hannibul crossed the Alps or that the Titanic sank. We just can’t draw definitive conclusions on THE DETAILS.

4. The questions raised by Barker have been answered many times. The most recent, and perhaps most plausible, account was given by David (or Gordon?) Wenham in his book The Easter Enigma..

Blessings
Doc

"In Christ...the ONLY THING that matters is faith energized by love." Galatians 5:6

Forum Information

Currently it is Monday, November 09, 2026 12:10 PM (GMT -6)
There are a total of 97,718 posts in 6,040 threads.
In the last 3 days there were 0 new threads and 0 reply posts. View Active Threads

Need Support? | Forum Help Manual