• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Free will cannot exist at the same time as an omniscient, omnipotent being

joe1776

joe1776

Well-Known Member
Milton Platt said:
He was probably speaking of the Christian god, who is described as being omniscient. If that is not your personal version of god, you may rest in peace.
Click to expand...
No. The argument in the OP depends on a specific definition of omniscient; namely "all knowing." The following wouldn't work: (Macmillan) infinitely wise.

(
 
Milton Platt

Milton Platt

Well-Known Member
joe1776 said:
No. The argument in the OP depends on a specific definition of omniscient; namely "all knowing." The following wouldn't work: (Macmillan) infinitely wise.

(
Click to expand...

I think part of your post is missing.
But the only definition of Omniscient I have ever heard is "all knowing". that is precisely the definition of the word as used today.
In any case, yes he was addressing a specific definition of omniscient,,,the most common one, and the only one which fits the etymology of the word. I was also addressing that definition.

omniscient
To be omniscient is to know everything. This often refers to a special power of God.

If you combine the Latin roots omnis (meaning "all") and scientia(meaning "knowledge"), you'll get omniscient, meaning "knowledge of all." This is how a god is supposed to know when you sinned, or what's going to happen in the future.

If merely knowing something makes one omniscient, then even monkeys are omniscient.
 
Last edited:
Unguru

Unguru

I am a Sikh nice to meet you
Dan Mellis said:
The mother goose wasn't an argument intended to ridicule anyone - at least thats how I see/use it. Its a way of shifting the argument to apply it to another comparable situation
Click to expand...

You don't have the grounds to assert these as comparable, anymore than my examples above. Is buying a fashion mag the same thing as performing open heart surgery? yes or no?

Dan Mellis said:
I use a universe-creating teapot that orbits the sun to make a similar argument. It's not ridicule, it's intentionally using a ridiculous proposition to highlight how those arguments do not work.
Click to expand...

But this would be a strawman, period. Using a strawman, and the other two fallacies you're making, is not helping your case. Again, you're acting childish,

Dan Mellis said:
You were simply retorting with the intellectual equivalent of "I know you are, but what am I,"
Click to expand...

If this is what you think what I was doing, then you're in for a heart attack when you realize what you're doing.
 
MonkeyFire

MonkeyFire

Well-Known Member
Dan Mellis said:
... at least a being who is responsible for our creation.

I'll illustrate this in 3 points.

1. God apparently flooded the world because everyone was evil in their actions and thoughts

2. If god is all knowing, he knew how his creation was going to turn out and understood the consequences of his actions when creating this world

3. If god was all powerful, he could have created it in such a way that people weren't evil and he didn't need to kill them all.

If god knows how its all going to turn out and he knew every choice/thought you have before he created you, and he had the power to do it differently, it's only reasonable to assume that "free will" is an illusion of choice. If he already knows, then its already decided.

That is, if he existed.
Click to expand...

Pacifism must end non-violence or risk suffering. At the beging of time the angel of omnipotence fell to the nihilistic demon of invincibility.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top