Abraham should have said, 'No.'

[shmogie]

Except you forgot Abraham went through the motions until he was stopped.

I didn't forget it, I am not sure why you think it is relevant.

 

[74x12]

It doesn't matter if it is difficult to envisage, it is logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to know if another being knows everything or not.

My point is you will be omniscient in heaven. So you will know omniscience because God shares it.

That's why I said it's hard to imagine right now. Not sure you see it. Oh well, tried ...

It's like the old: can God make a stone so heavy even He can't pick it up?

The idea of God being all powerful is that He has all power that exists. He doesn't have power that doesn't exist and He is not powerful enough to make himself weak. Which would be self refuting and nonsensical.

It's not about being able to imagine such a thing or not, or conceive of what omnipotence is like, it's about logical possibilities.

I meant right now it is hard to conceive of. Then it won't be. You'll know for sure. You will have knowledge of exactly how God knows all things. It will be easy to see. As easy as 2+2. Right now what we know is nothing comparatively speaking.

n the same way we can deduce that omnipotence really means do everything that can logically be done, but not do everything (including the illogical), we can deduce that it is impossible for a limited being to know whether God is truly omniscient or not. It can only be taken on trust.

It's actually really easy to know if God is omnipotent in this universe. Once you realize that everything emanates from the infinite mind of God and all things exist by His Word; which you could liken to the source code of this reality. Then it's easy to see how He has all power here.

Which is why ... Going full circle ... Abraham should have said No, because Trust, no matter how warranted, can never overturn the direct knowledge of moral reality that the ritual sacrifice of children is wrong.

I don't agree that it is wrong in this case. Since God asked it then it was right; until God changed His mind. Which God already planned to do. The whole thing was a test and Abraham passed.

The point of the test is seen in what Jesus taught.

Matthew 16:25
For whosoever will save his life shall lose it: and whosoever will lose his life for my sake shall find it.

We can always have greater warrant in trusting that level of moral instinct (assuming moral realism), than have warrant in trusting that a being asking us to do an outrage, without justification, isn't a devil or testing us (to say no).

Already gone in to this. A prophet such as Abraham walking with God for so many years had a keen sense of discernment. He knew God from devils. And as for morality. I believe it's source is God's Word. So if God says it; then it is moral. So the realism of morality is that all things are held together and exist by the Word of God and going against the Word of God is to undo oneself and return yourself to chaos. That is uncreate yourself. This is why it results in destruction. And this is why the elements will burn with a fervent heat because of transgression of the Word.

And why Jesus the Word of God made flesh came to reconcile or restore us to Himself again. That is in other words to rewrite us according to the Word of God again. Because we are currently in an unsustainable state of being.

 

[halbhh]

No, it's settled as far as I'm concerned. I offered the challenge to see if I was wrong .. And no defeator. As yet, any way.

Interesting possible options involving moral relativism, but if we go in assuming a broad agreement on moral realism and that child sacrifice is morally wrong, I can't see how my opening statement is false.

In short, the whole thing boils down to:
It's always more likely that the being telling you to do an obviously immoral act without justification is either: a) not God, or b) testing your response and desiring you refuse or ask for justification, than it is that an omnibenevolent God would command you to do an obviously immoral act without providing a justifying reason.

Thus Abraham should have said, 'No', as should we all if any deity claimant, no matter how well we know them or trust them, commands us to do something obviously grossly immoral, since, again, it is always more likely we are deceived in some way about this being than about the ethicality of ritually murdering our own children.

By 'deity claimant' aren't you really saying Abraham doesn't really know how God is tho? He's only got a contact then, maybe an angel, or who knows what?

While in contrast, God is like the ground of being, or something more like that, where if He really does come, and you aren't just immolated or whatever, then...you might be able to see through the illusion of the moment, and get the real situation, and then even if you raise the dagger....you know there's no death or somethin'.

 

[nPeace]

When a deity-claimant commands you to kill your son the correct response is, 'No.'

Change my mind.

Not with intent to change your mind, but reason with you.
When the government demands you give them your money, is the correct response, "No"?

One might reason, "Well, it's not technically your money, so giving it back to the rightful owner, is your duty". Sounds reasonable?

There are at least three reasons why Abraham rightly said "Yes".
1) Sarah was barren, and in her old age - the point where child bearing for her would have been, "What? No way!"
God gave her the child.

2) Since Abraham knew that the child was given in promise by God, and he had implicit trust in God's power, and trustworthiness (certainly Abraham was no Atheist), Abraham knew two things... a) God promised that he would multiply Abraham's offspring, like the stars of heaven. Abraham trusted that, and so, b) Abraham knew God could restore the life of his son.
(Hebrews 11:11, 12, 17-19)
11 By faith also Sarah received power to conceive offspring, even when she was past the age, since she considered Him faithful who made the promise. 12 For this reason, from one man who was as good as dead, there were born children, as many as the stars of heaven in number and as innumerable as the sands by the seaside.
17 By faith Abraham, when he was tested, as good as offered up Isaac - the man who had gladly received the promises attempted to offer up his only-begotten son - 18 although it had been said to him: “What will be called your offspring will be through Isaac.” 19 But he reasoned that God was able to raise him up even from the dead, and he did receive him from there in an illustrative way.

Abraham was also blessed to see the illustration God used, so that strengthen his faith and trust even more. He saw here, another occasion where obeying God, even when you don't see the outcome, is the best thing to do. That faith, is what made him God's friend.
Hence why the scriptures say... "Faith is not the possession of all persons" 2 Thessalonians 3:2 (God's spirit is needed - Galatians 5:22)
3) Even before Isaac was born, Abraham had faith.

God used the perfect test of Abraham's faith, since the nations around commonly sacrificed their children to their gods. God asked Abraham to do something that Abraham might find strange, but yet be familiar with... and would have been hard to do.
So, God did a few things here. 1) He proved Abraham's faith. 2) He demonstrated in an illustrative way, what he would do for mankind - that is, sacrifice his own son (Jesus Christ John 3:16), and 3) he showed that he has no need of child sacrifice. In fact, he made that clear in the Mosaic Law. (Deuteronomy 12:31, 18:10)

It was never something good in his eyes.
(Jeremiah 32:35) Furthermore, they built the high places of Baʹal in the Valley of the Son of Hinnom, in order to make their sons and their daughters pass through the fire to Moʹlech, something that I had not commanded them and that had never come into my heart to do such a detestable thing, causing Judah to sin.’

Reasonable?

 

[nPeace]

You can't know it's God 100%, that's the point.
And even if somehow you did, it is more likely He wants you to say 'No' to obvious evil than 'yes.'

Hence why Abraham should have said, 'No'

All this explained multiple times in more detail in previous posts on this very long thread, lol

How would Abraham not have known who was speaking to him?
When God asked him to leave his relatives, an dwell in tents, he followed, and saw the blessings he got.
When God told him his barren wife would bear a son, he saw it happen.
So how is it, he does not know that God is the one telling him to offer up his son?
Are you saying that God allowed someone to impersonate him, and did nothing about it? Would you do that, if you were the almighty?

 

[robocop (actually)]

I disagree. Have a look at my posts so far in this thread to see why.

OK. You seem to be grandstanding about, "No one can know it's God telling you to do it." I think I have a way to bring down that argument.

First of all, Abraham had seen a miracle when his wife was 90 years old and conceived the child in the first place.
He had seen many miracles which, given not only their supernatural nature but their meaning, he would have to be strongly motivated to obey.

He was promised his seed would be as the dirt on all the beaches or the stars in the sky and that all the world would be blessed through his seed... another thing to make him seriously consider it.

Lastly, it was symbolic of God sacrificing His Son Jesus Christ. If Abraham understood this, he very well could have known 100% what he was doing. That was a Universal sacrifice just like Abraham's promise was for Abraham's influence to be Universal.

 

[Galateasdream]

My point is you will be omniscient in heaven.

Then as I said before, if He makes us omniscient then we can know God is omniscient. But you said almost omniscient, not actually omniscient, before. Hence the confusion here.

don't agree that it is wrong in this case.

We'll just have to agree to disagree

A prophet such as Abraham walking with God for so many years had a keen sense of discernment.

But He wasn't omniscient ... Hence my argument kicks in.

 

[Galateasdream]

By 'deity claimant' aren't you really saying Abraham doesn't really know how God is tho? He'

By deity claimant I just mean a being claiming to be God. And they either are or are not. But Abraham wouldn't 'know', he could only believe - maybe with good reason, but he can't literally know for sure because it's impossible to prove.

 

[Galateasdream]

When the government demands you give them your money, is the correct response, "No"?

Yes, if that money is to be used for funding the sacrifice of your child.

There are at least three reasons why Abraham rightly said "Yes".

None of those three reasons actually show that he was right. Sorry.

Reasonable

Unfortunately not, no.

 

[Galateasdream]

How would Abraham not have known who was speaking to him?

Because it's logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to know if the being claiming to be God actually is or not. At best they can have good warrant for a belief, but they cannot know 100%.

 

[Galateasdream]

You seem to be grandstanding

No, I'm not using a rhetorical device, I'm presenting a logical argument.

I'm afraid none of your points demonstrate how Abraham could know 100% it was God talking to him.

 

[nPeace]

Yes, if that money is to be used for funding the sacrifice of your child.



None of those three reasons actually show that he was right. Sorry.



Unfortunately not, no.

Why not?

Because it's logically impossible for a non-omniscient being to know if the being claiming to be God actually is or not. At best they can have good warrant for a belief, but they cannot know 100%.

Not true. Since a non-omniscient being - in this case, a human - knows that he is not talking to himself, but having real experiences, and so knows that an entity of greater being is talking to him.
When the human observes the reality of the experience, it is proof, confirming that this higher being is God.

 

[Galateasdream]

Why not?

Because none of them defeat the logical argument constructed in the first few pages of this thread. In short, none demonstrate that a) Abraham could know for sure he wasnt being commanded by a non-omnibenevolent being, and b) that God wasn't testing him to see if he would say the correct answer 'No', both of which (a or b) are more likely than the real God giving a command to commit an obvious moral atrocity without justification.

See previous posts in this thread to see how your points have been dealt with.

so knows that an entity of greater being is talking to him.

Knowing an entity is greater than you is nowhere near the same thing as knowing that that entity is the omni-attributed God. And therein lies the rub.

 

[nPeace]

Because none of them defeat the logical argument constructed in the first few pages of this thread. In short, none demonstrate that a) Abraham could know for sure he wasnt being commanded by a non-omnibenevolent being, and b) that God wasn't testing him to see if he would say the correct answer 'No', both of which (a or b) are more likely than the real God giving a command to commit an obvious moral atrocity without justification.

See previous posts in this thread to see how your points have been dealt with.



Knowing an entity is greater than you is nowhere near the same thing as knowing that that entity is the omni-attributed God. And therein lies the rub.

So, I'm trying to understand your argument.
Is your argument that Abraham should have said "No" because he did not know the being speaking to him was bad?
Or is your argument that Abraham should have said "No" because he should have relied on his own judgment of what would be the right thing to do?
Or other?
Please clarify, so I can get your argument in clear focus.

I'll be away from my computer for a while.

 

[robocop (actually)]

No, I'm not using a rhetorical device, I'm presenting a logical argument.

I'm afraid none of your points demonstrate how Abraham could know 100% it was God talking to him.

Spiritual things are known by spiritual methods, and see my post!

 

[Galateasdream]

So, I'm trying to understand your argument.
Is your argument that Abraham should have said "No" because he did not know the being speaking to him was bad?
Or is your argument that Abraham should have said "No" because he should have relied on his own judgment of what would be the right thing to do?
Or other?
Please clarify, so I can get your argument in clear focus.

I'll be away from my computer for a while.

Abraham should have said No, because he is always going to have more immediate and sure warrant for believing that sacrificing your child is wrong than he is going to have warrant for believing the deity claimant commanding him to do such an abomination is an omni-attributed God with an unspecified morally sufficient reason who is also not just testing his response with the intention he says No.

Ie:
A)Likelihood that murdering your own child is wrong - very high
B) Likelihood the person telling you to kill your kid is God - not as high as A
C) Likelihood that if it is God then He testing your morality with the expectation you say No - higher than B

 

[Galateasdream]

Spiritual things are known by spiritual methods, and see my post!

The mechanism for the knowledge is irrelevant.

Unless the mechanism grants omniscience it cannot be known for sure that the being talking to you is omniscient (or any other omni-attribute).

Consider:
If I told you I was omniscient right now, how would you test that to see if it was true?

Let's say you ask me every question, and I provide a correct answer to every one. Have I proven I am omniscient or merely demonstrated that I can answer all the things you can think to ask?

Obviously only the latter. You don't know how many things can still be asked and can't know if I'd know the answer to those questions you don't know to ask because you're not omniscient.

Does that make sense?

 

[Thief]

Your logic is similarly flawed because you have no idea what it means to: a. be omniscient. b. converse with such a being.

could you learn from Prophets who claim they have?

or have you scratched off....Moses...Jesus.....Muhammad?

 

[Thief]

No, I can't really imagine such a situation no.

But it wouldn't change the fact that Abraham should have said, 'No.'

As I should do if I ever find myself before a being telling me to kill my child.

so the situation eludes you.....but yet you critique someone else's response
Abraham was in a tough spot

death to his son?
death to himself if he says ….no?

perhaps death to both

if you wish a response unlike Abraham......allow me....

Nay.....I have not the heart to slay my son
but as the man Job did say......
the Lord gives
the Lord takes away
if you desire the life of my son.....It is Yours to take
spare my hand

 

[Galateasdream]

so the situation eludes you.....but yet you critique someone else's response
Abraham was in a tough spot

Indeed.

In the same way I can't imagine what it was like to be a Nazi, but I can critique 'I was only following orders.'

I would rather die than kill my child.
Most moral parents would at least hope to make the same choice.