You're viewing a single thread.
I never got this. They say he is omnipotent, therefore he does not perceive time in a linear way like we do. He knows everything that ever was, is and will be all at once. So there is not much to test here. Either he does the things needed to make me a believer or he doesn't. It's his choice and not mine. Free will is meaningless here, even if it does exist, he does already knows my choice before I make it or he is not omnipotent.
"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?" - Epicurus
Ackshuallyit was probably not Epicurus, but Sextus Empiricus. From the surviving writings it seems Epicurus was really not fond of Atheists.(Doesn’t change that it’s a great argument, I just hate that we don’t have a definite source for it)
As an atheist I take issue with Epicurus statement, which gets floated around a lot. I think it's because in Epicurus's framing of the universe evil has agency, whereas christian apologetics will respond with evil representative of a lack of goodness. Then there's the issue of free will to contend with.
I'm not sure I follow. If you see evil as "a lack of goodness", the argument stand. If he's benevolent, why is goodness not everywhere?
I mean, the answer I've heard from apologetics is the benevolence is a paternal type of benevolence. Kind of like a parent who will let their child touch a hot stove so as to not deprive them of free will. I'm probably doing a terrible steel man of the position because I don't quite buy it
If goodness supposedly has agency because of God, when why evilness wouldn't have it? Supposedly it also does, because of the devil. If good and evil don't have agency, then it's just karma and there is no God or devil.
Well yes ok. But the way I've heard I described is evil is a lack of goodness the same way darkness is the absence of light. There is no "non-light", there is less or more light.
Sure, but "God works in mysterious ways," so it's not my responsibility to clear up any paradoxes that arise from my religious axioms. Get with the program.
"God works in mysterious ways" is a nice way of describing him as a Lovecraftian horror we cannot possibly understand.
Playing The Sims 2 helped make His mysterious ways less mysterious but the same amount of cosmic horror.
Also brings out the capricious in you
God works in mysterious ways
I wanted to find out the origin of that tripe, and it's a poem that should be titled simply "Copium."
Hypothetically, if such an entity did exist, shouldn't that same logic also extend to knowing his own future choices? Since they already know everything that will happen, they also know everything that they themselves are going to do, and therefore, have essentially no agency themselves, because even if their power is infinite, it is already set beforehand what they are going to use that power for and they are essentially just along for the ride?
For that matter, if they know everything, and therefore know everything at all points in time all at once and so shouldn't perceive time linearly, then there is no room for such a being to really engage in information processing, since that requires taking in information, and doing something with it to produce new information, and this kind of being has already taken in all the information possible from the very beginning, does not experience a meaningful flow of time (and so cannot experience change with which to apply to that input), and already has all the outputs from the very beginning too. Since thinking is a form of information processing, it occurs to me a truly omniscient being like this should basically be a philosophical zombie; basically an unconscious object of incredible scope that merely appears to be a conscious thinking entity to humans due to our limited perception of time.
As a thought experiment, if we think of a god as a being that exists in the 5th dimension, it could be omnipotent/omniscient to the lower 4 (3 spacial + time) but only have a limited presence/influence regarding things like probability, and no influence whatsoever on things like other realities.
Similar to how we exist in the 4th dimension and can fully manipulate the lower three; but while we exist and are aware of time, we can't manipulate it outside of trying to nudge it with extreme speed or gravity.
A god in 5th dimension then would kinda look like someone playing the Sims and making use of save states to try to optimize every decision in the game; and while you might be aware that other games exist, -this- one can only ever be Sims.
This would make omnipotence a question of scope - to the individual sim, the player is all powerful in the ways that an individual sim can experience, so, omnipotent; but that player can't do shit to Minecraft, or instances of Sims running on other computers, so, simultaneously not omnipotent.
Basically the Many Worlds theory, but each reality would have its own god.
...which still doesn't really pass the all-knowing, all-powerful, all-good test, but it does at least frame the concept of god in a more interesting way from a mythology perspective.
No religion that I'm aware of acknowledges things like dimensions, but then they present their god as existing in a way that's clearly outside the scope of the 4 we experience... So, there's wiggle room even in actual religious lore in how we package things like "omnipotence".
I love movies and books that touch on topics like this, like situations where you've got a super-being but they build in limitations.
-
one who can "see" into the future for hundreds of years but can only actually view one timeline simultaneously and in real-time (meaning they could see any event in the future but would need to burn time in "the now" like watching a recorded video)
-
beings that constantly lose track of what the "current" reality/timeline is in a seas of possibilities (MIB3's "Griffin" is a fun example of this)
-
being able to know what significant future events will occur but unable to influence whether they do or not. Unavoidable destiny (e.g. Emma's Death in "the Time Machine" is unavoidable, though the exact many it occurs changes)
-
Knowing what "bad things" will happen but still being on the "best track" timeline as deviations make things worse (Loki, Butterfly Effect)
-
Macro level knowledge overcrowding micro level suffering in the backdrop of inter-galactic scales and infinite time
-
semi-autonomous superpowers commanded by unfathomable beings without fine control and a limited self-awareness
None of this of course is an argument for the existence of an actual deity that loves us but ignores us, however they are fun ways to think of how one might know the future yet not want or be able to change it.
-
This only exists if there is one possible outcome, it’s possible for the future to be undetermined, and still have an omniscient being know all future possibilities. They would know the infinite possible outcomes of their choices, all the iterations, but would still have free will to decide which path is followed. In this scenario people still don’t have free will because of the omniscience problem.
Shouldn't they still know which path they will end up choosing to take?
Potentially yes, but it kind of breaks down if you ask whether they: made the choice (making a choice and knowing your own choice are sort of the same thing?) and followed the path to that outcome; or knew the path and made the choices to adhere to it. Obviously it’s hypothetical and also trying to assign some logic to something that’s not logical, so it gets kind of messy.
That sounds like an AI to me
I think there was this guy Calvin who already pointed that out.
Omnipotent means "all-powerful." Omniscient means "all-knowing."
Correct. But the Christian belief is that God is also omniscient. He is the three omnis: omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent
And here I thought knowledge was power.
And I thought France was bacon.
That's Francis, not France. Common mistake
So, I assume you don't know that story.
Oh, wasn't aware of that
So he has the power to acquire all knowledge, right? Being omnipotent includes being omniscient, except for the edge case of intentionally not acquiring all knowledge.
To be devils advocate here (ha irony):
The main argument against this by Christians would be, that God gives us free will that he does not control because that it objectively and ultimately good, and he is all good, so he must give us uncontrollable free will.
An alternative argument would just be that he's god, and we can't comprehend how he must have done/sees things, but it says it in the bible so it's true and we have no right to question it.
That second one is not a funny exaggeration, but something I heard said very seriously growing up in church. Somewhat to their credit, worshiping a god does imply an ultimate unquestionable authority, so this would happen at a certain point no matter what, from the perspective of the religious.