God and Free Will

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think there is a way to resolve which is which based on rational argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My admittedly limited reading suggests that the consensus theist position is "Limited only by what is logically possible"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a cut/paste from two posts so if it butchers your meaning just clarify.

"logically possible" would seem to mean we can apply logic to it within some framework, or it means nothing.

You can apply logic to a totally warped imaginary universe, but you do need something defined in some way to apply it to. ??

Is there some way you can sew this together?

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand this point - does it appear the two are contradictory? What I mean is I dont believe God's existence is resolvable by logic alone. I do believe whatever we mean by "God" must satisfy the criteria of being logically consistent. So when I say God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent I define each of those terms to inherently exclude logical contradictions. That's what I mean when I say God - I dont claim that I am defining him into existence in some way, or that he may not be bound by the laws of logic.

As I say - I think we are possibly in different books here, let alone not on the same page. I doubt this has answered your question in any way - perhaps you can clarify?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
I dont think there is a way to resolve which is which based on rational argument.

[/ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
My admittedly limited reading suggests that the consensus theist position is "Limited only by what is logically possible"

[/ QUOTE ]

That's a cut/paste from two posts so if it butchers your meaning just clarify.

"logically possible" would seem to mean we can apply logic to it within some framework, or it means nothing.

You can apply logic to a totally warped imaginary universe, but you do need something defined in some way to apply it to. ??

Is there some way you can sew this together?

thanks, luckyme

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand this point - does it appear the two are contradictory? What I mean is I dont believe God's existence is resolvable by logic alone. I do believe whatever we mean by "God" must satisfy the criteria of being logically consistent. So when I say God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent I define each of those terms to inherently exclude logical contradictions. That's what I mean when I say God - I dont claim that I am defining him into existence in some way, or that he may not be bound by the laws of logic.

As I say - I think we are possibly in different books here, let alone not on the same page. I doubt this has answered your question in any way - perhaps you can clarify?

[/ QUOTE ]
This thread is good stuff but time is limited for me at the moment.

Luckyme, I agree 100% with Bunny here, can you clarify what your concern is with this.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
I think we are possibly in different books here, let alone not on the same page.

[/ QUOTE ]

Nope, I'm just sitting here scrunching and squiriming while pouring over your scattered notes, if I could form them into a pamphlet even I'd be happy. this note may help, providing I can be clearer in reply.

[ QUOTE ]
I'm not sure I understand this point - does it appear the two are contradictory? What I mean is I dont believe God's existence is resolvable by logic alone. I do believe whatever we mean by "God" must satisfy the criteria of being logically consistent. So when I say God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent I define each of those terms to inherently exclude logical contradictions. That's what I mean when I say God - I dont claim that I am defining him into existence in some way, or that he may not be bound by the laws of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'll do some point-by-point, but overall the above seems to be trying to have it both ways and doesn't fit it's stated goal of logical consistancy.

[ QUOTE ]
I do believe whatever we mean by "God" must satisfy the criteria of being logically consistent

[/ QUOTE ]

That may contain a clue. Perhaps I demand more of "being" <logically consistant> and I see your attempt as "deemed to be". Remember, I'm not focusing on an unspecified god here, I'm focusing on the omni-stuff.

[ QUOTE ]
So when I say God is omnipotent, omniscient and benevolent I define each of those terms to inherently exclude logical contradictions.

[/ QUOTE ]

That may be the key. I don't think you , nor has anyone else that I've read managed that "define each of those". Your claim reads like wand-waving. We gather an armful of ill-defined omni-attributes, which we seem incapable of describing clearly, and we wave the wand saying, "this group shall henceforth contain no logical contradictions."

We could create any group of words, give them a fuzzy definition and wand them into consistancy.

[ QUOTE ]
That's what I mean when I say God - I dont claim that I am defining him into existence in some way, or that he may not be bound by the laws of logic.

[/ QUOTE ]

No, but you are trying to define his existance logically ?? If you aren't, and just want to stop at the leap-of-faith in a irrationally defined god ( I think that is the best if not only route )we wouldn't be typing.

People seem to allow an incredible amount of fuzziness in this area that they don't allow in other topics when they demand logical consistancy.

I raised the bootstrapping and circular issues earlier -
Omniscience is knowing what is knowable.
Omnipotent means that god can do whatever he wants.

"what is knowable"..who gets to define that? If it's god, aren't we now at "god knows what he knows"? That puts him in my category :-)
If the condition of 'knowability' is beyond gods power to assign, he can't succeed in any 'want to know more'.

We can hardly say we've defined something with "I am what I am" ( I saw the movie :-)

my earlier question to chez on the attempt to reconcile omniscience and omnipotence ( let alone as stand-alones)-
[ QUOTE ]
How does the bootstrapping work? How would he know what he wants to know? He would seem to need some a priori kick start or ?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't get sidedtracked thinking I'm raising issues of the existance of 'god/s'. It's the "logically coherent" part of the situation that is necessary to keep certain god discussions in the realm of metaphysics that appears to have received special treatment, and we allow wand-waving to take the place of logical rigor.

If this only focuses you on my area of concern, I'll treat it as progress. It certainly isn't my 'list of objections' because I can't counter a claim that is fuzzy in itself, other than pick at the fluff as it pops up.

thanks bunny, interesting road, luckyme

[bunny]

I would claim -

Omnipotent means having the ability to do anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.
Omniscience means being able to know anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.

These seem well defined to me (although it is hard to tell whether a proposed instantiation of either satisfies the definition - I think this is a weakness of definition but not an ultimate failing.)

As an example of a similar definition - I think knowledge is true, justified belief (modified slightly for gettier problems). Yet, this definition seems to answer the question "What is knowledge?", but leave me helpless to determine whether a belief of mine is knowledge or not. I think that makes it the definition less useful but still meaningful.

If these are accepted as definitions then it seems fine to say "When I say "God" I am referencing an omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent being." I may be attempting to reference a non-existant object, the ultimate creator of the universe or something else - my definition cant tell me which (and I think rational argument cant either, though I beleive this without proof).

I think I can almost understand where you are coming from but I am really struggling to see how someone could object to the above (in principle - obviously they could object to the definitions...)

Are you perhaps suggesting that the definitions are meaningless without being able to decide whether something fits? I dont see this as a problem. Mathematicians can posit the existence of all kinds of objects without ever providing an actualised example of one - eg "the first pair of twin primes greater than a googleplex to the power of a googleplex" - I would put money on nobody ever providing an example of that, yet it is well defined....

Does this post mean anything?

[guesswest]

[ QUOTE ]

Omnipotent means having the ability to do anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.
Omniscience means being able to know anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.


[/ QUOTE ]

Are you talking about internal contradiction, or one contradicting the other?

[DougShrapnel]

[ QUOTE ]
Doug - why is it inconsistent?

[/ QUOTE ] Sorry Chez missed this the 1st time around. Allways beingness. The only way a God could even have the knowledge of his always existingness, is if he exist outside of anytime barrier what so ever. We cannot say god always was if we have an element of time. For 2 reasons if there is time, god cannot be allknowing, for he cannot know if something created him. To be able to know he would also have to exist at a place without time. So it is possible that god's exist in a "time" different then ours, with the addition that he must also exists in some form without time.

[atrifix]

[ QUOTE ]
Omnipotent means having the ability to do anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.
Omniscience means being able to know anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the definition of omnipotence, but I don't think that omniscience is quite right--imagine that there is an indeterminate universe that exists outside of the 2O being (God'--who is not omniprescent but exists at a certain point in time). God' doesn't know the future, but that isn't a logical contradiction, it's a metaphysical one. Since he's omnipotent, he could change the universe to be such that he does know the future, but suppose he doesn't (or, alternatively, we could reduce him to only an omniscient being). I don't see that it makes God any less omniscient. I think an omniscient being need only know what is knowable, at least, so that it does not entail any sort of contradiction, logical, epistemic, metaphysical, or otherwise.

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Does this post mean anything?

[/ QUOTE ]

Sure does. You seem to be looking in the right spot for the concerns I'm raising and perhaps even see the edges of them.

[ QUOTE ]
Are you perhaps suggesting that the definitions are meaningless without being able to decide whether something fits?

[/ QUOTE ]

That touches on it, but I don't think that's the best way to express the flaw in the definitions.

Your math and knowledge examples do work as definitions, by comparison.

Let's say god is going over his list of 'do-ables' and is considering adding X and Y.
He notices adding both will make the bundle logically inconsistent but he can add one or the other. Which one can he add?. He looks at the definition of “what god can do”, ooops.

Shouldn't a definition of "what I can do" define what I can do?

Normal definition - "Buffalo - bigger than a breadbox, brown, humpy ... ".
circular-definition - "Buffalo - breeds with other Buffalo".

The second definition seems even clearer than yours for omni's and we even know it's a true test, but is it really a definition? Could we tell we were looking at a buffalo and not a tse-tse fly if we used it?

To go in the other direction… I may be an OMNI. I can also do anything that isn’t logically inconsistent. But that’s against a backdrop of constraints. I don’t see building a list of omni-do-ables without the constraints. The X-Y issue is also perhaps an example of the chicken-egg problem of bootstrapping chez will likely be commenting on. Perhaps X-Y wouldn’t be a problem together if AB hadn’t been preselected.

Even if we get past the internal problems with omniscience, what happens if we run into a conflict with omnipotent .. which one rules and why.

Communication by example and analogy isn’t the greatest way but it can keep a topic on course at times, that’s the main point of these comments,

Did it move us forward? luckyme

[bunny]

It is a struggle for me to leave God's existence out of it (although I am trying) but this may be why our positions exclude each other. I think of God as an object with certain properties - when it comes to him deciding which of X or Y he is able to do I think there is a "fact of the matter" (which, incidentally I think he knows).

My claim of omnipotence & omniscience being usefully defined in this way is that it helps me decide if my beliefs about God are rational (presupposing he exists which I understand you dont). I think this deciding is indeed in this either/or kind of way.

So, for example, if I'm deciding "Does God know the future?" I realise that also believing "God exists within time" and "Free will exists" imply a contradiction. Therefore they cant all be true. I then proceed to a conclusion (irrationally deciding which is which perhaps, although not always) which maintains internal consistency. I dont think it is like this for God though - I think he has direct knowledge of his limitations, he doesnt "work out" what he can do. Nonetheless, the complete package satisfies my definitions.

(In answer to you question re internally consistent vs consistent with each other I mean both).

I think this may be the root of our differences - I believe God has properties and try and make statements about them preserving consistency. You think I am trying to explain what I mean and there is no way to "get it?" without already knowing what those properties are. Is that it?

[bunny]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Omnipotent means having the ability to do anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.
Omniscience means being able to know anything which doesnt result in a logical contradiction.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree with the definition of omnipotence, but I don't think that omniscience is quite right--imagine that there is an indeterminate universe that exists outside of the 2O being (God'--who is not omniprescent but exists at a certain point in time). God' doesn't know the future, but that isn't a logical contradiction, it's a metaphysical one. Since he's omnipotent, he could change the universe to be such that he does know the future, but suppose he doesn't (or, alternatively, we could reduce him to only an omniscient being). I don't see that it makes God any less omniscient. I think an omniscient being need only know what is knowable, at least, so that it does not entail any sort of contradiction, logical, epistemic, metaphysical, or otherwise.

[/ QUOTE ]
I think this is indeed closer to what I meant - any sort of contradiction. I havent really thought about this before though...