Does God get annoyed by creationists?

[borrofburi]

Basically my point. Though I maintain that free will can sort of exist with omniscience. I do however say that it is impossible for free will of any kind to exist if there is an omnipotent omniscient being.

In the end it boils down to the order in which things are done. If the being acts first, and then uses its omnipotence to 'look at' the outcome, then omnipotence and omniscience might be compatible. But as soon as the being knows the outcome of its own actions its free will is limited. All of this assumes that the being only perfoms one action. So in the end, I guess you,´re right (and Squawk too).

Nah because if it is omniscient then it would already know the outcome as soon as it thought of performing the action, and indeed it already knew exactly which action it was going to choose and exactly how that was going to turn out for every millisecond into the future. Essentially: if omniscience includes knowing the future, and it includes knowing its own future, then it already knows what it's going to do (and exactly how that turns out) even if that includes getting rid of (or ignoring) its own omniscience (because before it gets rid of or ignores its omniscience it already knows exactly how that's going to turn out).

 

[Irokesengranate]

Nah because if it is omniscient then it would already know the outcome as soon as it thought of performing the action, and indeed it already knew exactly which action it was going to choose and exactly how that was going to turn out for every millisecond into the future. Essentially: if omniscience includes knowing the future, and it includes knowing its own future, then it already knows what it's going to do (and exactly how that turns out) even if that includes getting rid of (or ignoring) its own omniscience (because before it gets rid of or ignores its omniscience it already knows exactly how that's going to turn out).

That,´s what I tried to say. As soon as a being knows its own future, it can no longer have 'free will', because if it had then the future would be unknowable, and if the future is knowable then the being can never change its mind or make any decision really.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

To answer the topic's title: no, any more than "He" could get annoyed at any other category.

I think the problem of "free-will" is a virtually impossible issue to resolve.

The only way it would make sense is if God's omniscience does not apply to His own existence.

For example, He might know everything that's going to happen to/in this Universe - but doesn't know what's going to happen to Him - in other words, there are limits to His omniscience.

It would be somewhat similar to where a human chess player - somehow - knows every possible move sequence: he knows all possible games from the starting position - "perfect knowledge" of the game of chess.

This, however, does not mean that he knows what's going to happen in his own future.

I think that this is the only way to resolve this issue.

So, why did God create souls and give them "free will"?

To have others to share His "future" - as companions, as it were, on His own journey into "the Unknown".

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lrkun]

Greetings,

To answer the topic's title: no, any more than "He" could get annoyed at any other category.

I think the problem of "free-will" is a virtually impossible issue to resolve.

The only way it would make sense is if God's omniscience does not apply to His own existence.

For example, He might know everything that's going to happen to/in this Universe - but doesn't know what's going to happen to Him - in other words, there are limits to His omniscience.

It would be somewhat similar to where a human chess player - somehow - knows every possible move sequence: he knows all possible games from the starting position - "perfect knowledge" of the game of chess.

This, however, does not mean that he knows what's going to happen in his own future.

I think that this is the only way to resolve this issue.

So, why did God create souls and give them "free will"?

To have others to share His "future" - as companions, as it were, on His own journey into "the Unknown".

Kindest regards,

James

This does not fit the all knowing, all powerful, everywhere definition. But, it is an interesting guess. Assuming god isn't perfect, your reasons intuitively reflect the human perception of a god, such as when a god is made in the image of man.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

This does not fit the all knowing, all powerful, everywhere definition. But, it is an interesting guess. Assuming god isn't perfect, your reasons are intuitive even if it only reflects a human's perception.

Thank you, Irkun - it's the only reason that makes sense to me.

Interestingly - having done a search on Google to see if it was a Christian explanation - I've discovered that Edgar Cayce had indicated this from his "out-of-body excursions".

Please note, I'm not "championing" Cayce or his own philosophy - just noting that it's similar to what I've posted regarding this issue, is a reasonable explanation ... and makes interesting reading.

 

[lrkun]

Greetings,

This does not fit the all knowing, all powerful, everywhere definition. But, it is an interesting guess. Assuming god isn't perfect, your reasons are intuitive even if it only reflects a human's perception.

Thank you, Irkun - it's the only reason that makes sense to me.

Interestingly - having done a search on Google to see if it was a Christian explanation - I've discovered that Edgar Cayce had indicated this from his "out-of-body excursions".

Please note, I'm not "championing" Cayce or his own philosophy - just noting that it's similar to what I've posted regarding this issue, is a reasonable explanation ... and makes interesting reading.

You should add that to this forum's recommended reading. In my case I'm not interested in how everything came to be. I'm more interested in how to keep things running. Hehe.

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

"This forum's recommended reading" ?

Kindest regards,

James

 

[lrkun]

Greetings,

"This forum's recommended reading" ?

Kindest regards,

James

Suggested Reading Thread

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

Dragon Glas, your idea seems quite strange to me.

First, you can't claim omniscience and limits at the same time. I do believe you didn't really mean he was 100% omniscient, but just as a side note.

Secondly, why would he create us to be his "companions" and still remain so distant from us? I mean, you simply can't take the words of holy books that exist in the present time and claim them as God's word, of course, but I don't see why he would remain so distant.

Then there's another issue: I don't believe there can be omniscience, because I believe knowledge is infinite, unlimited.

Also, you can't say that he knows everything that isn't about him but about the universe, and at the same time say he would create us to be his companions. Why? Because if he knew what would happen to us, even before he created us, he would've known exactly what effects these things that happen to us would have on him, thus making that idea of limited knowledge invalid.


Cheers

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

Dragon Glas, your idea seems quite strange to me.

First, you can't claim omniscience and limits at the same time. I do believe you didn't really mean he was 100% omniscient, but just as a side note.

Most of the time, theists throw out the "omniscience" term literally meaning 100% - personally, I don't think that this makes sense. If I unerstand you - from this statement and your later comment about knowledge being infinite - we both agree.

Secondly, why would he create us to be his "companions" and still remain so distant from us? I mean, you simply can't take the words of holy books that exist in the present time and claim them as God's word, of course, but I don't see why he would remain so distant.

I have no explanation for this - any more than anyone else!

However, we're looking at things from this end of the tunnel (the physical) - perhaps from the other end (the spiritual), things might make sense.

The Greeks believed that souls, before they were born on Earth, were made to drink from the waters of Lethe - thus forgetting their pre-existence in the spiritual realms. Granted, for them, this was a post hoc, ipso propter hoc explanation as to why (the) God(s) remained "distant".

Then there's another issue: I don't believe there can be omniscience, because I believe knowledge is infinite, unlimited.

Perhaps we agree - thus, if I'm not mistaken, you believe that there are things which may well remain unknowable!?

Also, you can't say that he knows everything that isn't about him but about the universe, and at the same time say he would create us to be his companions. Why? Because if he knew what would happen to us, even before he created us, he would've known exactly what effects these things that happen to us would have on him, thus making that idea of limited knowledge invalid.

Cheers

Er, no - I don't think so.

If He doesn't know what is going to happen to Him in the (far distant!!) "future", why would he know what will happen to us (in the far distant "future").

I realize that this is not what theists traditionally claim... but I'm just extrapolating from what I've proposed earlier in the thread..

Kindest regards,

James

 

[CosmicJoghurt]

For example, He might know everything that's going to happen to/in this Universe - but doesn't know what's going to happen to Him - in other words, there are limits to His omniscience.

This is what I was talking about. You said he knew everything that was going to happen to/in this universe, so that includes what's happening to us

Perhaps we agree - thus, if I'm not mistaken, you believe that there are things which may well remain unknowable!?

Unknowable, I don't know, but unknown for possibly always yes In other words, not unknowable per se, as in not possible to be known, but unknown because we can't find a way to know them.

Cheers

 

[Dragan Glas]

Greetings,

For example, He might know everything that's going to happen to/in this Universe - but doesn't know what's going to happen to Him - in other words, there are limits to His omniscience.

This is what I was talking about. You said he knew everything that was going to happen to/in this universe, so that includes what's happening to us

Within this universe - and, perhaps to a certain extent, into the "future" (after this universe comes to an end and we exist as souls). But not to the absolute "end of time".

Perhaps we agree - thus, if I'm not mistaken, you believe that there are things which may well remain unknowable!?

Unknowable, I don't know, but unknown for possibly always yes In other words, not unknowable per se, as in not possible to be known, but unknown because we can't find a way to know them.

Cheers

I see - unknown, though not necessarily unknowable ... which sounds like a de facto unknowable!

Kindest regards,

James