God and Free Will

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
I meant reconciling them in terms of making such an entity internally consistent so that it could feasibly exist - we've only scratched the surface in terms of all the contradictions that'd involve. I think it's fairly easy to come up with a definition of the independent attributes.

[/ QUOTE ]
The definitions I gave have no consistency problem.

The problem is that most people insist on leaving the terms vaguely defined in a haze of inconsistency and then want to draw conclusions.

chez

[guesswest]

Unless I've misunderstood your definitions, they retain the problem that one power could be used to diminish the other?

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Unless I've misunderstood your definitions, they retain the problem that one power could be used to diminish the other?

[/ QUOTE ]
Maybe, I don't think so. I may be wrong and/or the definitions may need clarifying.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
Omnipotent means that god can do whatever he wants. That means if he makes the world P then it is necessarily that not-P isn't the case (otherwise god hasn't done what he wanted).

Oniscient means being able to know anything that is knowable.

[/ QUOTE ]

I must be misreading this because I seem caught in a loop along the lines of -
Edible means everything that can be eaten.

There seems something missing or perhaps just clarified.

Also, can an omnipotent want to know more than what is knowable? there does seem some overlap issues.

luckyme

[guesswest]

chez - i have a lengthy rambling monologue forming in my head RE: your suggestion that we carefully define this concept of god, but I have to run, so will post it tomorrow....

But quick question, do you think it's possible to come up with an internally consistent model that also includes the attribute 'good'? - then we'd be talking about the christian god.

[atrifix]

I see this as more of a paradox than a contradiction. Consider just the 2O being who is omnipotent and omniscient, where omnipotence is being able to do what's logically possible and omniscience is being able to know anything that's knowable. Being able to create an indeterministic universe seems paradoxical but not contradictory, at least to me.

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
Also, can an omnipotent want to know more than what is knowable? there does seem some overlap issues.

[/ QUOTE ]
god has made what he wants knowable, that necessarily means that anything he chose to make un-knowable cannot be known by him (otherwise he hasn't done what he wanted).

The general problem with omnipotence comes when we don't recognise that doing what we want precludes doing other things. Not recognising this makes god powerless to do anything not omnipotent.

chez

[luckyme]

[ QUOTE ]
god has made what he wants knowable, that necessarily means that anything he chose to make un-knowable cannot be known by him (otherwise he hasn't done what he wanted).

The general problem with omnipotence comes when we don't recognise that doing what we want precludes doing other things. Not recognising this makes god powerless to do anything not omnipotent.

chez

[/ 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 ?

luckyme

[spoohunter]

Well this is all fine and well I don't think many theists will agree with you that God knows only what he made knowable and will instead claim that he knows everything. Maybe I am wrong I am no expert but that is what they taught me in God school (church).

[chezlaw]

[ QUOTE ]
chez - i have a lengthy rambling monologue forming in my head RE: your suggestion that we carefully define this concept of god, but I have to run, so will post it tomorrow....

But quick question, do you think it's possible to come up with an internally consistent model that also includes the attribute 'good'? - then we'd be talking about the christian god.

[/ QUOTE ]
yes, I see no problem with that logically but it can't be extended to a god that demands belief on faith.

chez