Omniscient god or Free Will? you can only have ONE

[Princess Luna]

All most all Christians (as well as many other religions) believe that God knew everything about you 1000's of years before you were born. every Breath you will take , Every time you will blink , and biggest of all rather or not you will go to heaven or hell after you die because God is Omniscient he knows all the Past , Present and Future down to the smallest detail. Now lets move on to another believe all most all Christians have , free-will the idea we are all in control of our own of destiny , this is crucial for preachers/priests/pastors when discussing the idea of people suffering eternally for jerking-off , because you didn't have to jerk-off you had free-will! therefore you have no-one to blame for your eternal agony other then yourself. However there is a giant plot-hole in this little fairy tale ,if God knew everything about me before i was born including rather or not i am going to heaven or hell (or to use Theological speak "rather or not my name is in the lamb's book of life") then all my life is planned out and my destiny is already decided I don't have free-will only the illusion of control. Therefore you must choose do you want a Omniscient god or Free Will? because you can't have both..........

[Sosa]

Thats a false dilema there. It's neither. Free will is an illusion. It's Determinism

[hatzel]

Oh, theological fatalism. Didn't the Rambam have something to say about that? Don't worry, it was only 800 years ago, this is definitely still a relevant enough point to go preaching on forums...

[RedAnarchist]

If this "god" character really was omniscient and perfect, then why did he not see the theory of evolution coming? In the last 150 years, it's been a successful force against idiotic claims that we were created, so why didn't he mention evolution in his little book which Christians claim he wrote when it's quite obviously manmade?

Even if a god did exist, I don't believe you can attach any quality to it, and even if it does exist, doesn't necessarily mean that it affects us in any way, either when we are alive or when we are dead.

[ComradeMan]

If this "god" character really was omniscient and perfect, then why did he not see the theory of evolution coming? In the last 150 years, it's been a successful force against idiotic claims that we were created, so why didn't he mention evolution in his little book which Christians claim he wrote when it's quite obviously manmade?

Even if a god did exist, I don't believe you can attach any quality to it, and even if it does exist, doesn't necessarily mean that it affects us in any way, either when we are alive or when we are dead.

Well, that's a bit of a silly argument. A theist might argue quite simply that God reveals the way God creates the universe to humankind. It's part of the process or the revelation.

Don't defend or attack based on literal and flawed interpretations!!!

Christians and Jews don't claim that the Bible was "written" by God- they believe it was the divinely inspired/revealed word- and perhaps not in all parts because we are not dealing with one book. Beware of those who read the Bible as prose!!!

Never thought it might be symbolic? Metaphor? Allegory?

To my knowledge electrons have never been proven to exist- only inferred.... :lol: Not that I doubt science, but still- the likes of Dawkins used very poor argumentation against religion in my opinion, that they would not accept if it were there "own" field of expertise.

The other problem is with the attribution of human characteristics to God.

[hatzel]

If this "god" character really was omniscient and perfect, then why did he not see the theory of evolution coming? In the last 150 years, it's been a successful force against idiotic claims that we were created, so why didn't he mention evolution in his little book which Christians claim he wrote when it's quite obviously manmade?

In all honesty, if the Bible were to be expected to contain the knowledge of absolutely everything that would ever be known about anything, it would be a rather long book...on that note, why doesn't Origin of the Species make any mention of the theory of relativity? Because it wasn't known, yes, that's an argument, but one could also happily point out that the theory of relativity has absolutely no place in Origin of the Species, and it would be stupid to include it in there, even if it were known of. As the Torah is (as the name suggests) effectively an instruction manual on how is good to live, I don't see the relevance of outlining any scientific, mathematical or other knowledge in it. The other elements of the Old Testament, nobody claims to be anything other than man-made, but still there's no place for it. New Testament...what can I say? I don't know anything about it. Still, I'll assume that that too is man-made (as it has the names of the men who wrote it attached at the start of the books), and still, why should Matthew, Mark, Luke or John have taken a little detour from telling us all about Jesus to casually point out a little bit about supernovas or whatever...

[ComradeMan]

In all honesty, if the Bible were to be expected to contain the knowledge of absolutely everything that would ever be known about anything, it would be a rather long book...on that note, why doesn't Origin of the Species make any mention of the theory of relativity? Because it wasn't known, yes, that's an argument, but one could also happily point out that the theory of relativity has absolutely no place in Origin of the Species, and it would be stupid to include it in there, even if it were known of. As the Torah is (as the name suggests) effectively an instruction manual on how is good to live, I don't see the relevance of outlining any scientific, mathematical or other knowledge in it. The other elements of the Old Testament, nobody claims to be anything other than man-made, but still there's no place for it. New Testament...what can I say? I don't know anything about it. Still, I'll assume that that too is man-made (as it has the names of the men who wrote it attached at the start of the books), and still, why should Matthew, Mark, Luke or John have taken a little detour from telling us all about Jesus to casually point out a little bit about supernovas or whatever...

Good points Rabbi K. :lol:

The Vedas contain a lot of stuff that Vedists claim can confirm science if read a certain way. But a lot of stuff was not known at the time.

What would have been the point of an omniscient God revealing the theory of relativity to Bronze Age people? Or Iron Age people? The free will is the "allowing" humankind to reach the level of being able to discover for themselves.

[RedAnarchist]

Well, that's a bit of a silly argument. A theist might argue quite simply that God reveals the way God creates the universe to humankind. It's part of the process or the revelation.

Fair enough.


Don't defend or attack based on literal and flawed interpretations!!!

God point, especially as studies have shown that few Christians really know much of what is written in the Bible anyway.


Christians and Jews don't claim that the Bible was "written" by God- they believe it was the divinely inspired/revealed word- and perhaps not in all parts because we are not dealing with one book. Beware of those who read the Bible as prose!!!

That would make sense, because there are a lot of contradictions in the Bible, even between the four Gospels.


Never thought it might be symbolic? Metaphor? Allegory?

Yes, but it would be worrying that people can deny certain groups rights or equality based on a collection of allegories.


To my knowledge electrons have never been proven to exist- only inferred.... :lol: Not that I doubt science, but still- the likes of Dawkins used very poor argumentation against religion in my opinion, that they would not accept if it were there "own" field of expertise.

There's people like that for all fields of expertise. It would be good if people could make great arguments for and against different viewpoints.


The other problem is with the attribution of human characteristics to God.

Doing so would make that god somewhat easy to disprove.

[Mr.Awesome]

An interesting point. However, seeing as God is infinitely more intelligent than us, we cannot begin to truly understand him. We were not made to be Gods equals. We are inferior and that includes intellectually. One could argue that the way God makes us is so that our minds could never understand these things.
Personally, I think belief in God is ore reasonable hat not. After all, science is always changing, correcting itself, etc. Therefore, looking at the number of times 'science' has been wrong, isn't it unreasonable to believe in science?

[hatzel]

After all, science is always changing, correcting itself, etc. Therefore, looking at the number of times 'science' has been wrong, isn't it unreasonable to believe in science?

...are we almost approaching the really rather poisonous statement of 'science is religion with experiments'?

[RedAnarchist]

An interesting point. However, seeing as God is infinitely more intelligent than us, we cannot begin to truly understand him.

How do you know that, if he exists, that god is more intelligent than us? How do you define intelligence in this context?


We were not made to be Gods equals.

Who says that we were made? Why would we want to be god's equals, if he exists?


We are inferior and that includes intellectually.

Why are we inferior? If we were supposedly made in his image, why do we have to be allegedly inferior?


One could argue that the way God makes us is so that our minds could never understand these things.

You could, but then why give us the idea that we could potentially do so?


Personally, I think belief in God is ore reasonable hat not. After all, science is always changing, correcting itself, etc. Therefore, looking at the number of times 'science' has been wrong, isn't it unreasonable to believe in science?

Science never claims to know the truth, it simply says that a certain theory appears to be the most likely. Scientists question their theories all of the time, and if a theory is disproven, it is replaced. Religion, however, has had to compromise it's beliefs in order to keep up with science and society.