Subject:
|
Re: Nature of man (was Re: Problems with Christianity)
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:08:25 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
726 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Tom Stangl writes:
>
>
> James Brown wrote:
>
> > Another take: Maybe God's omnisicience is not a static thing. Perhaps, with
> > each choice we make, God's knowledge is updated. As a rough analogy, a jar
> > of water does not change in content by being stirred.
>
> Then it is no longer omniscience.
Why not? Omnisicence is commonly defined as "knowing all things." What if
the set{all things} changes? Where is it writ in stone that omniscience
implies or requires knowledge of the future at all? I've been allowing for
that assumption so far, but it is by no means necessary or absolute. There
are a number of philosophies that hold the future doesn't exist, there is
merely a constantly changing present. If that happens to be the correct
view, then omniscience doesn't contradict free will, and the body of
knowledge is constantly changing.
> > Another take: (and the one I tend to lean towards) Omniscient and
> > omnipotent, as commonly defined are self-defeating. (Can God make a rock he
> > can't lift?) Shift the definition to "know all things knowable" and "do all
> > things doable", and God can be omnisicient without compromising free will.
>
> Not to the true definition of omniscience. And if you state God is not
> omniscient, he really can't be considered God anymore. A creator that does
> not know his work is not a very good creator. Same goes for omnipotence.
I'm not sure I get this. I'll break it down into the two points I think
you're addressing.
The common definitions of omniscience and omnipotence (which is what I
assume you're refering to as the "true" definition) are paradoxical and
self-defeating. The classic example I refered to above stands. God can
make anything, God can lift anything. God can make an unliftable rock, God
can lift said rock. Paradox. This gives rise to two common responses, one
being the (IMHO rather tired) "we're imperfect, and can't understand how,
but God can still do both" line. The other response, which I think is more
reasonable, is to challange the definitions. If something can not be done,
then it doesn't fall into the realm of "all things".
If omni(stuff) is part of the definition of God, then yes, a non-omni(stuff)
God isn't God. Is that what you're saying? It looks like it, but you're a
bit ambiguous. You might also be saying that a non-omni(stuff) God isn't a
very good God, but might still be God.
As an aside, lots of creators (some creators of very enduring works) have
claimed they do not fully understand their creation. It doesn't make them
any less of a creator.
Would you be willing to post your arguments in a little more depth? I'm
enjoying this discussion, but it's hard to respond to one-liners.
James
|
|
Message has 2 Replies:
Message is in Reply To:
298 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
