Attention Atheists: Validity Issues

[Tiberius]

All loving, all powerful, yet allows suffering

And the good old "Can God create a rock he can't lift" thing.

And how can he have free will if he knows everything and thus knows what he will do tomorrow?

 

[ALifetimeToWaitFor....]

God is imagination. He is the product of our dreams- of our desires for something better. For something like us, but better than us. We are God, we are Christ, we are Muhammad- we are Buddha.

 

[Tiberius]

We created the universe, then?

 

[rocketman]

All loving, all powerful, yet allows suffering

Thanks for answering. If I'm heading off-topic here somebody tell me.

I doubt that you will be impressed by a parent/child analogy and/or an appeal to the importance of being able to compare his way with ours before 'locking in' eternal life, but I mention them both anyway as logical possibilities.

And the good old "Can God create a rock he can't lift" thing.

Do you mean the question of can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Well, can God make a square circle? The question is meaningless from a logicians point of view. Placing physical constraints on something/someone that is supernatural does not actually constitute a question. Besides, what did he stand on when he tried to lift that thing? Here's a question for you: can he make someone created in his image love him? If no, then is he really all-powerful?

And how can he have free will if he knows everything and thus knows what he will do tomorrow?

This is a bit silly friend. If everything depends on his very will to exist then how could he not have both free-will and foreknowledge at the same time? So whatever he chooses to do he knows about it already because only he can make it happen in the first place. That question I asked you earlier is telling: his free will and ours are two different things, and he allows that.

I think I'm getting off-topic. Sorry.

Peace.

 

[pandamonk]

We created the universe, then?

I think he's trying to say that God is something humans have invented, which has all the good characteristics of humans but made infinite. He is what we desire to be. If we can create a car, he can create the universe. If we can know a lot, he can know everything. If we can do a lot he can do everything, etc, etc.

 

[pandamonk]

Do you mean the question of can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Well, can God make a square circle? The question is meaningless from a logicians point of view. Placing physical constraints on something/someone that is supernatural does not actually constitute a question. Besides, what did he stand on when he tried to lift that thing?

This is why in my first ever post on RF i changed the argument from "can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?" to "Can God makee two magnets so strong he cannot separate them?" To which someone answered that if he made anything stronger than himself it would become God. And someone else answered that God's powers are infinite, so If he made an infinitely heavy rock, or infinitely strong magnets, he could still lift/separate it(them). But my argument against this is: many have claimed that God can do this illogical, but if he cannot make a magnet which is more than infinitely strong then he is bout by infinity and therefore logic. If he is not bound by logic, then the burden of proof is with the theist making these claims.

 

[logician]

Man has created god in man's image, for man's own purpose, the universe has no need for any god.

 

[rocketman]

This is why in my first ever post on RF i changed the argument from "can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it?" to "Can God makee two magnets so strong he cannot separate them?" To which someone answered that if he made anything stronger than himself it would become God. And someone else answered that God's powers are infinite, so If he made an infinitely heavy rock, or infinitely strong magnets, he could still lift/separate it(them). But my argument against this is: many have claimed that God can do this illogical, but if he cannot make a magnet which is more than infinitely strong then he is bout by infinity and therefore logic. If he is not bound by logic, then the burden of proof is with the theist making these claims.

When I said what did he stand on I was being sarcastic . Ok, let's take the magnets. While he is trying to pull them apart who is sustaining their very existence? You see pandamonk, there isn't actually a question in the first place, which is what I'm trying to say. This 'contradiction' line of thinking misses the point about God's relationship between his will and the very existence of things in the first place.

Cheers.

 

[Tiberius]

I doubt that you will be impressed by a parent/child analogy and/or an appeal to the importance of being able to compare his way with ours before 'locking in' eternal life, but I mention them both anyway as logical possibilities.

Not impressed at all. After all, God readily allows us to suffer horribly and die, something which no sane parent would ever allow for their child.

Do you mean the question of can God make a rock so heavy that he can't lift it? Well, can God make a square circle? The question is meaningless from a logicians point of view. Placing physical constraints on something/someone that is supernatural does not actually constitute a question. Besides, what did he stand on when he tried to lift that thing? Here's a question for you: can he make someone created in his image love him? If no, then is he really all-powerful?

Yes, the questions may be meaningless from a logical point of view, but God is above logic, isn't he? If God is above logic, then he can do those things anyway. If he is bound by logic, then he's not God after all.

This is a bit silly friend. If everything depends on his very will to exist then how could he not have both free-will and foreknowledge at the same time? So whatever he chooses to do he knows about it already because only he can make it happen in the first place. That question I asked you earlier is telling: his free will and ours are two different things, and he allows that.

God's free will and ours are different? Please, describe these differences.

And the simple fact is that God either knows what he is going to do tomorrow or not.

If he knows, then he can't change it, and thus has no free will.

If he doesn't know, he is not omniscient, and thus is not God.

You can't have God saying, "I know for a fact, 100% sure, no doubt about it, bet the entire universe that I'll make a planet tomorrow... or maybe I won't." God either knows for a fact or he doesn't. You can't claim that God can do two contradictiory things at the same time by inventing abilities, especially when you've earlier refused to grant God abilities to create square circles. When you do that, God is dependant on you for his abilities.

I think he's trying to say that God is something humans have invented, which has all the good characteristics of humans but made infinite. He is what we desire to be. If we can create a car, he can create the universe. If we can know a lot, he can know everything. If we can do a lot he can do everything, etc, etc.

Maybe so, but that would effectively reduce the Bible to hogwash, yes?

 

[rocketman]

Not impressed at all. After all, God readily allows us to suffer horribly and die, something which no sane parent would ever allow for their child.

That depends on what is at stake my friend. [And by the way, this death you speak of, you've experienced it?] Anyway, you and I have been around for an infinitely small speck of time. There's no good reason to believe that we have the same maturity and wisdom of a being who may be responsible for our existence, even our eternal existence. If we are talking about YHWH, the God of the ancient Hebrews, then their texts are full of lamentations by their God regarding his sadness over having to take a firm hand with his offspring. Ezekial 18:32 is interesting "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord". [Actually, that whole chapter really makes me wonder how atheists could make the claims about God that they do.] It seems impossible to me to study this particular deity's scriptures [incl NT] and not see a parent/child relationship where the 'parent' constantly lays down rules and consequences. Lev. 26:23,24 is as simple as it gets. We adults may not like being treated like children, but given our extremely limited nature it may well just be that there is a being not so limited who may know more about our [very]long term welfare than we do; and no, he/she/it needn't like what they are allowing for a second, just as none of us would truly like to violently snatch a child back from a busy road, but we'd do it anyway.

Hey, this doesn't impress you either, right? No worries.

Yes, the questions may be meaningless from a logical point of view, but God is above logic, isn't he? If God is above logic, then he can do those things anyway. If he is bound by logic, then he's not God after all.

Aren't you confusing logic with physics? Your original premise is like asking "If a dog is a cat is it still a dog?" Try this idea on for size: God makes a rock too heavy for him to lift, but because he is God he can lift any rock. Hmm, do you see a problem here? The premise is broken, it's simply not a valid point. You keep applying constraints to a deity, while I keep insisting that by definition such an attempted question itself is a contradiction. You see the contradiction in the premise and try to rashly apply that to a deity without taking into account the deity's will. I don't think we are going to find a common ground here.

Given the standard definitions of God I don't see that he would ever will to contradict himself. So I don't think it's possible. Now, this is where atheists tend to get deeply confused, because they think that God is supposed to be able to do anything, which would directly contradict what the bible says. So, on this issue the general atheist view is false. God can't lie, for example. This is why I asked a few posts back if God can make one of his offspring love him, and if not then is he still all-powerful? But you missed the point. All three of your stated contradictions fall down when compared to a model of God who has free will and therefore can choose to never do certain things, or in the case of making us love him he doesn't have a choice, it'd be up to us. Besides, if he is God, then any logic that does exist would be entirely dependant on him, so he could change it at will to suit his will. [see a pattern forming here?]

God's free will and ours are different? Please, describe these differences.

By 'two different things' I meant that we can make decisions independantly of him and vice-versa. Sorry if I wasn't clear. I mentioned it in the first place to point out what kind of a God he is. All-powerful means he can do anything that can be done, which would preclude anything that he would never do, and making us love him. Is he still God then? Yes, according to the bible, but if you want him to be dependant on you for his abilities...

And the simple fact is that God either knows what he is going to do tomorrow or not...If he knows, then he can't change it, and thus has no free will...If he doesn't know, he is not omniscient, and thus is not God.

You've introduced a time element into the equation. That invalidates the question outright. But I'll play along anyway. Let's see, God wills to do something, therefore he knows it will happen, but then he wants to change his mind, er, God changes his mind? Sorry, you must have the wrong God. Please read the whole book. You've got the cart before the horse. If he was given to changing his mind THEN he wouldn't be God. He only relents on an issue when dealing with a creature of free will, something he allows for ahead of time within a temporal framework.

Ever studied quantum mechanics? Bohr's principle of complimentarity is a good physical example of how an observation has a bearing on a reality. Not a bad metaphor for God's will/fact state of being, and a good reminder that we can easily miss big things when we limit our idea of what's possible to the narrow space-time bandwidth which we percieve.

You can't claim that God can do two contradictiory things at the same time by inventing abilities, especially when you've earlier refused to grant God abilities to create square circles. When you do that, God is dependant on you for his abilities.

Are you sure it's me he is dependant on for his abilities? You have presented a strange God not unlike a superhero from a comic book. I have referred to the God of the bible who can't and won't do certain things and whose very will is what powers existence, a non-contradictable state of being. [I hope that's a word!] I know some theists and many atheists have a basic view of God, but I don't think he needs to conform to that view just to be God. If he is as described by the Abrahamic faiths then he is subtle, greater in wisdom than anyone, and certainly not subject to contradiction. Hey, I never said he couldn't create a square circle; the question would have been better put as "why did he create a round circle?" - I was alluding to his will again. The one thing that atheists seem to gloss over oftentimes is the will of God and it's relationship to reality, as if he were just a force. It makes all the difference.

Whew, sorry for the long post.

I do appreciate and respect your opinions Tiberius.

 

[stemann]

Aren't you confusing logic with physics?

Because as everyone knows, they aren't the same thing.

Your original premise is like asking "If a dog is a cat is it still a dog?"

The answer to this question is, "Yes."

Given the standard definitions of God I don't see that he would ever will to contradict himself.

So He cannot do what He does not Will to do. Therefore He is bound by logic.

Besides, if he is God, then any logic that does exist would be entirely dependant on him, so he could change it at will to suit his will.

So God can subvert logic, and this debate is meaningless.

er, God changes his mind? Sorry, you must have the wrong God.

If he was given to changing his mind THEN he wouldn't be God.

Erm.... therefore He has no free will. He has already decided everything; that is, everything He does defines Him, and there would be no difference between Him being a conscious entity or otherwise.

Ever studied quantum mechanics? Bohr's principle of complimentarity is a good physical example of how an observation has a bearing on a reality. Not a bad metaphor for God's will/fact state of being, and a good reminder that we can easily miss big things when we limit our idea of what's possible to the narrow space-time bandwidth which we percieve.

But limiting our ideas to the Bible is a great idea.

I have referred to the God of the bible who can't and won't do certain things and whose very will is what powers existence, a non-contradictable state of being.

Also non-necessary, and indefinable.

the question would have been better put as "why did he create a round circle?"

Oh my GOSH this is getting just ridiculous now. "Round" is part of the definition of "Circle." If God was going to change that, then he would therefore have to change logic. Since we mere mortals can't account for this situation, we should all probably stop going on about it.

The one thing that atheists seem to gloss over oftentimes is the will of God and it's relationship to reality, as if he were just a force. It makes all the difference.

How though? How does it do anything, at all? Because the Bible says it does?

 

[pandamonk]

Maybe so, but that would effectively reduce the Bible to hogwash, yes?

Ohh of course

 

[rocketman]

Stemann, your interpretation of my post is intriguing, coming as it does from you. I expected that you would have considered my post thoroughly, but you have made the same mistakes that Tiberius made earlier. Where did you guys get this strange God from anyway? And who told you that you need to be able to change your mind in order to have free will - what do you think that first-instance decisions are, lucky accidents? Since when does a supreme diety change his/her mind? If you spend the day making decisions without having changed your mind did you lack free will that day? Your argument is nonsense from a philosophical point of view.

While I'm at it, where on earth did you get the idea that one is bound by logic if one cannot do what one does not will to do? Do you think the will-not-to-do-it is generated by logic? Sorry, but you've got the cart before the horse too. You can't have logic generated by free will with the logic coming first.

I don't know what you limit your ideas to elsewhere, but if one is going to attempt to prove that a diety is subject to contradiction based on it's own abilities then you had better make sure you know what those abilities are supposed to be beforehand. Or just for fun you could make them up as you go along, like saying that God has already decided everything for instance. I really like that one.

Imagine a square circle. I can't either! Stemann, thank you. When you said "If God was going to change that, then he would therefore have to change logic..." you actually got my point. Now, why is it important? Because, as you have just alluded to, logic would flow from what he wants to do, his will. Why does his will make a difference? Because you can't hold that an all-powerful diety be subject to contradiction if his will does not permit the condition in the first place. Even a child can understand this.

Physics and logic really are two different things, just like cats and dogs, and paradoxes and contradictions too.

Seriously, next time I think we need to specify which diety we are talking about first.

Peace.

 

[stemann]

Stemann, your interpretation of my post is intriguing, coming as it does from you. I expected that you would have considered my post thoroughly, but you have made the same mistakes that Tiberius made earlier.

Ok rocketman, I do not believe that I made mistakes in reading your post, but if you believe I did, I will attempt to justify myself.

Where did you guys get this strange God from anyway? And who told you that you need to be able to change your mind in order to have free will - what do you think that first-instance decisions are, lucky accidents?

My definition of "change your mind" is that you have more than one option open to you. The first-instance decisions are predetermined, since, God being perfect, He is bound by choosing "the most perfect decisions."

The above paragraph is my answer taking into consideration that God is bound by logic. However, if we can assume for the sake of debate that God is not bound by logic, then He can have "free will." If God is not bound by logic, then, I doubt we will be able to have much of a debate about Him.

Since when does a supreme diety change his/her mind?

They don't! Not that I would know, since I'm not one, and don't personally know of any!

If you spend the day making decisions without having changed your mind did you lack free will that day?

No.

Your argument is nonsense from a philosophical point of view.

No it isn't! My arguments are never "nonsense" from a philosophical point of view. Except the one in the preceeding sentence.

While I'm at it, where on earth did you get the idea that one is bound by logic if one cannot do what one does not will to do?

I got it from my belief that one cannot logically have free will. This does not lead to, rather it is because of, the fact that it is impossible to do what one does not "want" to do. Since I believe that our "wants" or "desires" are dictated by non-free chemicals in our brains, I do not believe that we have free will (and nor can any other entity that is bound by logic).

But, as before, this point is moot, as this is going to be a debate about a Deity (not "Diety") who is not bound by logic.

Do you think the will-not-to-do-it is generated by logic? Sorry, but you've got the cart before the horse too. You can't have logic generated by free will with the logic coming first.

?????????????? I confess to not understand your point here.

I don't know what you limit your ideas to elsewhere, but if one is going to attempt to prove that a diety is subject to contradiction based on it's own abilities then you had better make sure you know what those abilities are supposed to be beforehand. Or just for fun you could make them up as you go along,

A couple of billion people already did that, it's called "theistic religion."

like saying that God has already decided everything for instance. I really like that one.

Me too man, hey, we have a lot in common, I love rf.com.

Imagine a square circle. I can't either! Stemann, thank you.

No, thank you.

When you said "If God was going to change that, then he would therefore have to change logic..." you actually got my point.

Well, that's what I was going for......

Now, why is it important? Because, as you have just alluded to, logic would flow from what he wants to do, his will. Why does his will make a difference? Because you can't hold that an all-powerful diety be subject to contradiction if his will does not permit the condition in the first place. Even a child can understand this.

And, since we know neither whether or not this is even true nor what other attributes a being (let alone Deity) not accountable to logic would have, this debate isn't going to make any "sense" to us, insofar as it ever did in the first place.

Physics and logic really are two different things, just like cats and dogs, and paradoxes and contradictions too.

Physics and logic are technically different, in that logic does not particularly depend on physics as far as we know (although it might do), but physics definitely depends on logic.

Seriously, next time I think we need to specify which diety we are talking about first.

Atkins.

Peace.

Thanks; you too.

 

[rocketman]

And, since we know neither whether or not this is even true nor what other attributes a being (let alone Deity) not accountable to logic would have, this debate isn't going to make any "sense" to us, insofar as it ever did in the first place.

Ok then, so that means we can neither present alledged contradictions nor refute them.

Well, I better go and do something else before I change my mind and suddenly have one less option available to me.

Cheers.

 

[stemann]

Ok then, so that means we can neither present alledged contradictions nor refute them.

Well, I better go and do something else before I change my mind and suddenly have one less option available to me.

Cheers.

Me and you rocketman, we're the sensible ones around here :yes:

 

[eudaimonia]

Saying "there is no God" as a general term is like saying "there is no Easter Bunny". It's possible that there are, though it's entirely unevidenced. No athiest I know meets either catigorization. They don't believe in a God the same way you don't believe in an Easter Bunny or pink Unicorn.

Precisely! Believing that something doesn't exist does not imply that one believes oneself to be infallible and omniscient, and to have an impossibility proof in one's hand that will never be contradicted for all time. The "strong" in "strong atheist" is not a synonym for "closed minded". It simply means that one believes there is no God. The strong atheist will probably consider this belief to be rationally justified, but not necessarily infallible. It could even be just a hunch.

Of course, it's possible to concretely rule out a particular idea of God by establishing it as self-contrary or incompatable with known fact.

That's another good point that's often missed.


eudaimonia,

Mark

 

[Tiberius]

That depends on what is at stake my friend. [And by the way, this death you speak of, you've experienced it?]

More the suffering that can go before the death.

What fit parent would let their children suffer horribly to teach them a lesson? And furthermore, what fit parent would let their children die to teach them a lesson? You can't teach a man if he's dead.

Anyway, you and I have been around for an infinitely small speck of time. There's no good reason to believe that we have the same maturity and wisdom of a being who may be responsible for our existence, even our eternal existence.

And does this being act with wisdom? let's see...

Puts that tree in the Garden of Eden when he didn't want Adam and Eve to eat from it, even though he knew for a fact that they would. Is that wise?

Created mankind, knowing full well that he'd have to destroy just about all of them. is that wise?

And maturity?

He turned Lot's wife into a pillar of salt (can we say painful death?) because she commited the heinous and unforgivable crime of wanting one last look at her home before it was gone forever. Is that mature?

If we are talking about YHWH, the God of the ancient Hebrews, then their texts are full of lamentations by their God regarding his sadness over having to take a firm hand with his offspring. Ezekial 18:32 is interesting "For I take no pleasure in the death of anyone, declares the Sovereign Lord". [Actually, that whole chapter really makes me wonder how atheists could make the claims about God that they do.] It seems impossible to me to study this particular deity's scriptures [incl NT] and not see a parent/child relationship where the 'parent' constantly lays down rules and consequences. Lev. 26:23,24 is as simple as it gets. We adults may not like being treated like children, but given our extremely limited nature it may well just be that there is a being not so limited who may know more about our [very]long term welfare than we do; and no, he/she/it needn't like what they are allowing for a second, just as none of us would truly like to violently snatch a child back from a busy road, but we'd do it anyway.

Hey, this doesn't impress you either, right? No worries.

So you say that even God doesn't like having to use death as a punishment. Why then does he do it so often for such trivial reasons? And why on earth did you yourself say, "And by the way, this death you speak of, you've experienced it?" like it wasn't really that bad after all?

When we have a God who kills us for trivial reasons and purposefully sets us up to do the wrong thing and then punish us for it, how can you claim that God is like a fit parent to us?

Aren't you confusing logic with physics?

What in the world are you talking about? Logic isn't explainable by physics.

Try this idea on for size: God makes a rock too heavy for him to lift, but because he is God he can lift any rock. Hmm, do you see a problem here? The premise is broken, it's simply not a valid point. You keep applying constraints to a deity, while I keep insisting that by definition such an attempted question itself is a contradiction. You see the contradiction in the premise and try to rashly apply that to a deity without taking into account the deity's will. I don't think we are going to find a common ground here.

The premise is only contradictory if God is bound by logic.

Given the standard definitions of God I don't see that he would ever will to contradict himself. So I don't think it's possible. Now, this is where atheists tend to get deeply confused, because they think that God is supposed to be able to do anything, which would directly contradict what the bible says. So, on this issue the general atheist view is false.

If there are things that God can't do, then he is not omnipotent. And thus he is not God.

God can't lie, for example.

Oh really?

Ah, Lord GOD! surely thou hast greatly deceived this people.

O Lord, thou hast deceived me, and I was deceived.

And if a prophet be deceived when he hath spoken a thing, I the Lord have deceived that prophet.

For this cause God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie.

Now, therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets, and the Lord hath spoken evil concerning thee.

Now therefore, behold, the Lord hath put a lying spirit in the mouth of these thy prophets.

You were saying?

I'll continue in a new post, as it's too long for one post.

Damn post length limits!

 

[Tiberius]

Continuing from previous post...

This is why I asked a few posts back if God can make one of his offspring love him, and if not then is he still all-powerful? But you missed the point. All three of your stated contradictions fall down when compared to a model of God who has free will and therefore can choose to never do certain things, or in the case of making us love him he doesn't have a choice, it'd be up to us. Besides, if he is God, then any logic that does exist would be entirely dependant on him, so he could change it at will to suit his will. [see a pattern forming here?]

Okay, so does God have free will?

Think about this...

When God created Adam and Eve, God knew that he was going to destroy Humanity in the flood, yeah?

So could he not destroy humanity?

If he could choose not to, then how could have KNOWN that he would?

And if He HAD to destroy humanity, then he doesn't have the ability to choose not to.

Do you see how the ability to know the future 100% is contradictory with free will?

And if you don't see that, please explain to me how God can choose to avoid destroying Humanity if he knows 100% for sure that he will.

By 'two different things' I meant that we can make decisions independantly of him and vice-versa.

I agree completely. I never make decisions dependant on God.

All-powerful means he can do anything that can be done, which would preclude anything that he would never do, and making us love him. Is he still God then? Yes, according to the bible, but if you want him to be dependant on you for his abilities...

Anything that can be done?

So....

We are dealing with a God who can:

• Create the universe from nothing
• Create all life from nothing
• Create a woman from just a rib
• turn people spontaneously into salt
• magically create enough water to cover the planet
• Many other magical thing

And you are saying that these can be done, despite them contradicting many known laws of science?

You've introduced a time element into the equation. That invalidates the question outright. But I'll play along anyway. Let's see, God wills to do something, therefore he knows it will happen, but then he wants to change his mind, er, God changes his mind? Sorry, you must have the wrong God. Please read the whole book. You've got the cart before the horse. If he was given to changing his mind THEN he wouldn't be God. He only relents on an issue when dealing with a creature of free will, something he allows for ahead of time within a temporal framework.

So God can't change his mind?

He can create the universe but can't change his mind?

Incidently, wouldn't that mean that prayer is just a waste of time? After all, if God's decided you are going to get cancer, then why pray to cure it?

And if he's decided that the cancer will be benign and won't kill you, then why pray, he's already decided to let you live.

Ever studied quantum mechanics? Bohr's principle of complimentarity is a good physical example of how an observation has a bearing on a reality. Not a bad metaphor for God's will/fact state of being, and a good reminder that we can easily miss big things when we limit our idea of what's possible to the narrow space-time bandwidth which we percieve.

And that has an affect on anything above the subatomic level?

Are you sure it's me he is dependant on for his abilities? You have presented a strange God not unlike a superhero from a comic book. I have referred to the God of the bible who can't and won't do certain things and whose very will is what powers existence, a non-contradictable state of being. [I hope that's a word!]

This seems to me that you are just defining God into existence by saying defining the existence of everything as relying on God.

I know some theists and many atheists have a basic view of God, but I don't think he needs to conform to that view just to be God.

Of course, because the only way to explain the contradictions in God is to invent more and more levels of complexity to explain the contradictions in the levels above.

If he is as described by the Abrahamic faiths then he is subtle, greater in wisdom than anyone, and certainly not subject to contradiction. Hey, I never said he couldn't create a square circle

And yet you're happy to say, "Try this idea on for size: God makes a rock too heavy for him to lift, but because he is God he can lift any rock. Hmm, do you see a problem here? The premise is broken, it's simply not a valid point."

What's the difference between creating a square circle and creating a rock so heavy that God can't lift it? A square circle is just as invalid as that rock.

; the question would have been better put as "why did he create a round circle?" - I was alluding to his will again.

But answering the question of why he created round circles tells us nothing about God's ability to create square ones. So it would not be put better like that.

The one thing that atheists seem to gloss over oftentimes is the will of God and it's relationship to reality, as if he were just a force. It makes all the difference.

Ah, but you are presupposing what you wish to prove. Do you see the flaw in that?

 

[pandamonk]

Okay, so does God have free will?

Think about this...

When God created Adam and Eve, God knew that he was going to destroy Humanity in the flood, yeah?

So could he not destroy humanity?

If he could choose not to, then how could have KNOWN that he would?

And if He HAD to destroy humanity, then he doesn't have the ability to choose not to.

Do you see how the ability to know the future 100% is contradictory with free will?

And if you don't see that, please explain to me how God can choose to avoid destroying Humanity if he knows 100% for sure that he will.

I think an argument that the theist might use is that God knows every action of all other beings but himself. But then, if he has always known exactly what all other beings would do, then he would know exactly how he'd react, and would be bound to act in a perfect way.

So God can't change his mind?

He can create the universe but can't change his mind?

Incidently, wouldn't that mean that prayer is just a waste of time? After all, if God's decided you are going to get cancer, then why pray to cure it?

And if he's decided that the cancer will be benign and won't kill you, then why pray, he's already decided to let you live.

One of God's attributes is immutability, which means he cannot change. If he is perfect, then change suggests that there was a better option open to him. If this is true then the option he first chose was not perfect. And yes prayer is just a waste of time. I find prayer in a perfect God extremely arrogant, because those praying are trying to tell God how he can do his job better. But if God is perfect then there can be no better. Anyway i don't even believe in God hahaha.