Omnipotence Doesn't Imply Seeing The Future.

[soon2bepro]

the once etc: clearly you have a wrong idea of what time is. What is REALLY time? Time is the events that happen in our reality. The only "limit" of time is the point when things stop happening. Basically to exist within our timeline means to see reality as it is now. That doesn't mean you don't KNOW what it was and will be, but that you see things as they are right now.

To say that somethings exists in all time basically means to say that there is more than one time, like there is an alternate reality for each point in time. Where do you get this idea? Back to the future maybe? [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

I think it's fundamentally wrong. It's no different than believing in any other thing you can't prove though.

(edit to add): I didn't say He exists ONLY within time... What is that supposed to mean anyway?

[The once and future king]

ER no.

You have a very limited concept set so it is hard to have a fruitfull discusion.

Do you think God can be in more then one place at once. Or more than one point in space at once? Of course he can.

the major problem is your construction of presence. I think you see God as as having a white beard and such and having some kind of ultimate physical/temporal presence that can only manifest in one space/time at once.

When I say God exists out of time I mean he dosnt pass through time say from one second to the next. As a presence it/God exists in all time at once. it/god isnt forced to inhabit some arbitary fixed point in the timeline that you a mere monkey that fell out of tree like to call "now."

This isnt idle conjecture. If one makes certain assumptions about Gods nature they are the only conclusions one can make on this issue. God is only an idea but it must be a coherent one that remains self referential and in unity with itself.

God can of course manifest physicaly at one point in spacetime, but does not exist purely in that instance alone. That is what I mean by exisitng ONLY within timespace. God does however not need to GO BACK TO THE FUTURE as he is alleady there.

If he existed purely in the dimension of time, he would be ultimately limited by the spacetimes laws. The timeline we inhabit is finite and will run out. Is god like a fish that drowns becuase the pond he is in evaporates. No way hosey, what a crap weak God that would be.

Time isnt just action following action, it is a dimension. Spacetime. Go read some Eienstien or something.

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
It is not possible to plausibly deny that there is evil in the world--there are natural disasters, there are diseases, there are man-made evils. These are all facts.


[/ QUOTE ]

A natural disaster is a fact. That it is evil can in no way be construed as fact. How do you propose to establish it as an objective fact. Evil is an utterly subjective defintion and therefore can never be given the status of fact.

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]
guesswest: It really doesn't matter whether He is or isn't active in the future. Being able to do anything doesn't mean you know how things work. Or that you know everything (which you need if you're to know the future).

Just as you imply He doesn't know what His own actions will be, as long as He's not omniscient, He may not know what other's actions will be. He may not know what the outcome of all kinds of factors interacting will be.

Just because He (could have) created the universe doesn't mean He knows exactly how it works.

Of course, if you throw Omniscience in the mix (and if Omniscience means knowledge of all, including Himself), He must know the future, so long as everything in the Universe (even Himself) works in a deterministic (logical) manner.

Then again, if you consider seeing the future as something doable, omnipotence means you have the power to "do" it. (as I said earlier)



PS: One hopes in time, humans will realize that absolute terms without a context are very often self-contradictory

[/ QUOTE ]

The assumption for this argument is that god is omniscient. Even if you interpret omniscience as referring only to the present tense, a god who creates the universe and then leaves it to it's own devices would necessarily then know the future as a result of knowing all the variables involved and thus the causal series that follows. God becomes the wild card when god chooses to meddle in future events, or reserves the option to do so, then you can't necessarily extract knowledge of the future from present tense omniscience because an omniscience which predicts god's future actions contradicts his being omnipotent - ie it would mean those actions are pre-determined and do not come about as a result of god's will. I believe this was the OP's point, I think it has serious problems when you introduce external factors like benevolence and determinism, but in so far as it goes and if you accept those premises in isolation, it seems logically sound to me.

[Philo]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is not possible to plausibly deny that there is evil in the world--there are natural disasters, there are diseases, there are man-made evils. These are all facts.


[/ QUOTE ]

A natural disaster is a fact. That it is evil can in no way be construed as fact. How do you propose to establish it as an objective fact. Evil is an utterly subjective defintion and therefore can never be given the status of fact.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think you understand the concept of evil as it is understood in the context of the problem of evil (the original problem I posted). Nevermind--it is enough to note that there is pain in the world (would you deny that?), or even better, that it seems to us at times that we are in pain. That itself is enough to derive the contradiction; an all-knowing, all-powerful, all-benevolent god would not allow pain in the world, yet there is pain in the world. It doesn't matter if the pain is there for a higher good, and it doesn't even matter if there really is no pain (that it's all somehow an illusion that there is pain in the world), because the illusion of pain by itself is painful.

[soon2bepro]

once again, agree w/ philo.

the once and future king: Our definitions of "time" are clearly different. Try looking at things from my point of view (for a change!) and you may see my side is right also. I think this discussion is over anyway.

guesswest: Again, creating the universe doens't necessarily mean you know all the variables. Simply that you put all things together.
About omniscience denying free will:
What really IS free will? Does anyone know? There seems to be a really huge taboo all around it. Very few seem to know what it actually means, yet everyone and their mother is talking about it.

Really, explain it to us. What is free will for you? Imagine a perfect world, with free will, and explain just what it is and what it takes for it to be there.

[soon2bepro]

Found these, they may help

Main Entry: free will
Function: noun
1 : voluntary choice or decision <I do this of my own free will>
2 : freedom of humans to make choices that are not determined by prior causes or by divine intervention

#1 seems to be a logical loop since it uses basically the same terms to explain itself, and doesn't really mean anything

#2 seems to be presenting an idea that is outside of logic. Is that what free will is to you (all)? A desition which has nothing to do with the laws of the universe/God?
Other than the fact that this is rather unlikely for what we know, we seem to be in trouble when considering that the only non-logical procedure that we think we know about, is randomness. Is that what free will is supposed to be? Hell, I hope not [img]/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

[The once and future king]

[ QUOTE ]
the once and future king: Our definitions of "time" are clearly different. Try looking at things from my point of view (for a change!) and you may see my side is right also. I think this discussion is over anyway.

[/ QUOTE ]

Choice 1: Accept soon2bepos made up defintion of time.

Choice 2: Use the definition of time as accepted by the scientific community, astrophysicists et al.

Not a hard choice. Why would I choose to look at time in a way that some random poster has made up on the spot? If you said blue was green should I now look at blue as though it were green? Of course not.

If you could supply some convincing arguement or discourse then well I that would make it more intresting. So far yor "arguements" amount to the following:

A is A because I say A is A.

[soon2bepro]

I really haven't read much about astrophysics or the like as to be able to know what the scientific community knows as time. So I guess there isn't much of an argument that you can accept. This conclusion I came up to by myself, by analyzing what the human understanding of reality is.

I suppose both mine and the scientific definition could be right. But then again Im not able to discuss the subject because I don't even know what the scientific arguments are.

So for me, you too are saying "B is B because the scientific community says so".

I wasn't trying to convince you to accept my definition but rather to come to an agreement.

[The once and future king]

Again you insist on the apriori judgement that pain is "evil."

Ask a leper about pain. He will goto extreme lenghts to be able to experience pain again. As would someone who was paralyised.

We can both assign the value of "evil" to a process or event, but we have no way of knowing if it is truely,objectively or absolutely "evil". Only God can know that.

If there is free will there is pain. If there is pleasure there is pain. Also pain serves numerous positive functions in human development. How can man be Noble if he never has to overcome adversity. How can man have compassion if there is no suffering.

It is not difficult to assign pain as a core process in a universe that is ultimately as good as God can make it.

Your whole arguement is compossed of pain etc = evil, end of discussion. You are however in no position or composed of the attributes as an existent subject in time to make such defintive conclusions.