Why would God's ultimate power come with ultimate responsibility?

[Nimos]

First, allow me to apologize for taking so long to respond to this post. I did not forget you, I was just busy, and I wanted to give your post the attention it deserves.

Don't worry, the post is not running anywhere

The reason that Messengers of God can sometimes foresee events of the future IS because they are informed by God.
To be clear, I am not saying that they could do this because of time and space being collapsed....
The reason that Messengers KNOW that in the spiritual realm, time and space are collapsed such that all events are knowable such that it is possible to see the end in the beginning is because they were informed by God of these things.

And im saying that it can not be used as an argument for whether or not we have free will. I understand this is what you believe. But it is like me saying that we don't have free will, because the Aliens won't allow it, they have this device on their planet aimed at Earth and it manipulates our minds. And as long as it does that, we don't have free will.

You see how that is not an argument, it is just me believing in Aliens which I haven't demonstrated, yet apparently, I know a whole lot about what they can and can't do. Fair enough if this was what I believed, but it isn't an argument worth anything when it comes to free will. That is my issue with what he is writing.

As I said above, that person said "we still are subject to random and contingent elements and have free will and the ability to alter the course of certain events in time." That means that some things that happen are random and some things are chosen with free will.

Following from above, do you see the issue here? It is irrelevant in regard to free will. Again I understand that this is what you believe, but you need to present an argument for why free will would be possible in the first place if God is said to know everything. And you don't even have to include God, you just have to make an argument about how it would be possible if anyone/anything know?

For instance, in another thread about free will, I made the argument that maybe free will could exist, if it is an emergent property, obviously this is speculative.
But my argument goes, that you could compare it to a house. Where bricks (atoms) might be deterministic, however, when put together into a specific pattern a house emerges, which has a lot of properties that bricks don't. A house offers security, shelter, space etc. And from a house other things can emerge such as heating it, cooling it, you can paint it etc. None of these properties exist within an atom. Which allows for atoms to be deterministic, whereas the emergent properties might not.

However, this argument wouldn't work in your case, because if God knows, then he also knows that the bricks will become a house and all the properties that come with it.

But you see the difference in why mine is an argument for the potential of free will? (Obviously, I might be wrong and not even convinced that it is true myself )

The reason it is a valid argument is because it takes things we know into account. We know atoms follow physical laws and we know that properties can emerge.

In short, we are not in control of anything that happens at random, like me getting hit by a car while riding my bike.

But this is what I mean by jumping to conclusions if the whole Universe is deterministic and known by God, then nothing is random. That is what we are trying to figure out.

The universe was caused by God but God is not subject to cause and effect since God does not exist on this material realm of existence where everything is cause and effect. God is like an onlooker seeing what humans are doing in this contingent realm of existence, where everything is contingent upon a prior cause.

Exactly, God might be the only exception. And only to a certain degree, when it comes to his lack of creation.

If prayers work then they might be the direct cause of God answering it. God probably wouldn't answer a non-prayer, that would be rather odd

The insect in the above example will die, but not because God knew it would die. It will die because the ball hit the insect. Ttat is back to cause and effect.

The insect died because there was no other option. Obviously, the ball hitting it was the cause of its death, but it is irrelevant when there is no other option.

How could the insect have avoided getting hit by the ball?

But the ball does not have to kill the insect. Everything in this contingent world is subject to change at any moment in time (unless it was irrevocable fated/predestined by God, but that is another subject.)

So how do you tell the difference between something being contingent and predestined?

 

[Trailblazer]

Don't worry, the post is not running anywhere

Again, allow me to apologize for taking so long to respond to this post.
I did not forget you, I was just busy, and I wanted to give your post the attention it deserves. Cat and computer problems have been abounding, and still are.

And im saying that it can not be used as an argument for whether or not we have free will. I understand this is what you believe. But it is like me saying that we don't have free will, because the Aliens won't allow it, they have this device on their planet aimed at Earth and it manipulates our minds. And as long as it does that, we don't have free will.

You see how that is not an argument, it is just me believing in Aliens which I haven't demonstrated, yet apparently, I know a whole lot about what they can and can't do. Fair enough if this was what I believed, but it isn't an argument worth anything when it comes to free will. That is my issue with what he is writing.

To be clear, I am not saying that God's or the Prophet's ability to see into the future has anything to do with why we have free will. God's foreknowledge or what the Prophets predicts has no bearing upon whether we do or no not have free will. I believe that we have free will but it is very limited, since it is circumscribed by so many factors, so in that sense our free will is deterministic free will.

Following from above, do you see the issue here? It is irrelevant in regard to free will. Again I understand that this is what you believe, but you need to present an argument for why free will would be possible in the first place if God is said to know everything. And you don't even have to include God, you just have to make an argument about how it would be possible if anyone/anything know?

Again, what God knows has nothing to do with whether or not we have free will.
God's knowledge does not cause us to do anything, not anymore than an astronomer's knowledge of when and where an eclipse will take place causes that eclipse to take place.

If you are making a claim that God's knowledge prevents us from choosing a or b or c then you need to explain why that would be the case.
How would what God knows what we will choose prevent us from choosing one thing or another? There is no logical connection between what God knows and what we choose. The reason God knows what we will choose is because God is all-knowing. It is as simple as that..

For instance, in another thread about free will, I made the argument that maybe free will could exist, if it is an emergent property, obviously this is speculative.
But my argument goes, that you could compare it to a house. Where bricks (atoms) might be deterministic, however, when put together into a specific pattern a house emerges, which has a lot of properties that bricks don't. A house offers security, shelter, space etc. And from a house other things can emerge such as heating it, cooling it, you can paint it etc. None of these properties exist within an atom. Which allows for atoms to be deterministic, whereas the emergent properties might not.

However, this argument wouldn't work in your case, because if God knows, then he also knows that the bricks will become a house and all the properties that come with it.

You are correct to say that God knows that the bricks will become a house and all the properties that come with it because God knows everything.

That is because free will is determined by many factors, like a house when put together into a specific pattern a house emerges. God knows everything so God knows all of those factors that will go into making us the person tat we will become.

Our ability to make choices comes from a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances - everything that goes into making us the person we are. All of these factors are the reasons why we choose one thing or another at any point in time. What God knows we will choose has nothing to do with what we choose. All-knowing is an attribute of God.

How free our choices vary with the situation. Recently I have changed my mind about how free we are when I realized just how limited I am in making choices different from the choices I am making now. I believe that free will is deterministic because the choices we make are 'determined' by a combination of factors such as childhood upbringing, heredity, education, adult experiences, and present life circumstances.

But you see the difference in why mine is an argument for the potential of free will? (Obviously, I might be wrong and not even convinced that it is true myself )

The reason we only have the 'potential' for free will is because free will is constrained by so many factors. For example, potentially I could adopt out all my cats and no longer have the problems I have because of them, but because of my childhood and adult experiences that made me the person I am today and because of my present life circumstances I cannot choose to do that.

But this is what I mean by jumping to conclusions if the whole Universe is deterministic and known by God, then nothing is random. That is what we are trying to figure out.

It is true that we are not in control of many things that happen in our lives but I have changed my mind about randomness. I don't think anything happens at random, I think everything is either the result of a free will choice someone made or it was predestined (fated) by God.

For example, I got hit by a car while riding my bike to work back in 2005, and that was the result of a choice a man made to talk on his cell phone rather than paying attention to what was on the road. I did not choose to get hit but that was my fate, as it was predestined to happen, and it happened because of a choice someone else made.

The whole universe is deterministic since everything that happens is preceded by a cause, which is what determines what happens. Sometimes x is caused by a choice person a made and that resulted in y, which then became person b's fate.

God is out of the game. God is like a spectator sitting in the bleachers and watching everything that unfolds, but God has no bearing on how humans choose to play the game of life.

However, one's destiny/fate might be determined by God if:

- Person a chose x and caused y to happen to person b, or if
- Something happened that was not caused by anyone's choice, such as a disease, or if
- Something happened that was not caused by a human, such as a natural disaster

If prayers work then they might be the direct cause of God answering it. God probably wouldn't answer a non-prayer, that would be rather odd.

Correct, God might answer a prayer which would alter our fate, but only if it was an impending fate.

“Know thou, O fruit of My Tree, that the decrees of the Sovereign Ordainer, as related to fate and predestination, are of two kinds. Both are to be obeyed and accepted. The one is irrevocable, the other is, as termed by men, impending. To the former all must unreservedly submit, inasmuch as it is fixed and settled. God, however, is able to alter or repeal it. As the harm that must result from such a change will be greater than if the decree had remained unaltered, all, therefore, should willingly acquiesce in what God hath willed and confidently abide by the same.

The decree that is impending, however, is such that prayer and entreaty can succeed in averting it..”
Gleanings From the Writings of Bahá’u’lláh, p. 133

Note that it says it “can succeed” not that it “will succeed.”
What that amounts to is that we are completely at the mercy of God...


God would not 'answer' a non-prayer, but God might give us what we need rather than what we want
I believe that God is doing that all the time.

The insect died because there was no other option. Obviously, the ball hitting it was the cause of its death, but it is irrelevant when there is no other option.

How could the insect have avoided getting hit by the ball?

The insect could not have avoided it but it could have been avoided if the driver had swerved and avoided hitting the insect.
That would have been the other option. The man saw the insect and chose to swerve to avoid hitting it.

So how do you tell the difference between something being contingent and predestined?

I don't think we can know the difference.
The question is: could a certain fate have been avoided if we had chosen a instead of b? That is a very good question.

For example, I don't know if it was predestined by God that my late husband die of cancer when he did or if it could have been delayed or avoided had he sought treatment. Was it (1) his impending fate (that could have been altered if he had prayed and sought treatment) or was it (2) his his irrevocable fate (thus he would have died no matter what he had done)?

I don't think we can know which one it was now, since he did not pay or seek treatment. If he had prayed and sought treatment and that succeeded could we know that it was an impending fate. If he had prayed and sought treatment and that did not succeed (he died anyway) then we know that it was an irrevocable fate.

 

[Nakosis]

The following is a post from an atheist I was chatting with on another forum. I told him I would post it here to get other opinions.

Nothing you said addresses that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. The only argument you could make is that God is either not all powerful, not all knowing, or not perfectly good. Which is it? The badly written, badly edited, contradictory, book Christians follow makes no sense to anyone who's read it that can think. Heck you don't even have anything written about your God from the people who met him. So use logic, you can't have infinite power and not be responsible for everything.

responsibility
something that it is your job or duty to deal with:

• It's her responsibility to ensure the project finishes on time.
• She takes her responsibilities as a nurse very seriously.

responsibility

Like in the Spiderman movie, I person is responsible for their actions and their inactions.
For example if I saw a woman being raped, if I did nothing would I be responsible for that rape?
IMO, I would. Because I could have stopped it but I didn't.

If you have the power to prevent an atrocity and do nothing you are just as responsible for that atrocity.
It happen, you were there. You had the power to prevent the atrocity and did not.

Sure one meaning of responsibility is duty. Another is the quality or state of being responsible.
Being responsible means your actions or inaction contributed to the event regardless of whether you felt any duty to intervene.

Certainly God may not see it as their duty to prevent any one person's tragedy, however, their inaction still allowed the tragedy which still makes them responsible.

 

[Trailblazer]

Like in the Spiderman movie, I person is responsible for their actions and their inactions.
For example if I saw a woman being raped, if I did nothing would I be responsible for that rape?
IMO, I would. Because I could have stopped it but I didn't.

Note the word person. God is not a person.

If you have the power to prevent an atrocity and do nothing you are just as responsible for that atrocity.
It happen, you were there. You had the power to prevent the atrocity and did not.

If you are a person.

Sure one meaning of responsibility is duty. Another is the quality or state of being responsible.
Being responsible means your actions or inaction contributed to the event regardless of whether you felt any duty to intervene.

Certainly God may not see it as their duty to prevent any one person's tragedy, however, their inaction still allowed the tragedy which still makes them responsible.

You are comparing God to a human and expecting God to behave like a human. That is the fallacy of false equivalence

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Idiom, Meaning & Origin

God does not have behavior so God cannot be responsible for any inaction.
Only humans have behavior thus humans are responsible for their actions and inaction.

 

[Truthseeker]

Note the word person. God is not a person.

If you are a person.

You are comparing God to a human and expecting God to behave like a human. That is the fallacy of false equivalence

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Idiom, Meaning & Origin

God does not have behavior so God cannot be responsible for any inaction.
Only humans have behavior thus humans are responsible for their actions and inaction.

Very logical, but I doubt this person will buy it. That's not the point for though, is it?

 

[Nakosis]

Note the word person. God is not a person.

If you are a person.

You are comparing God to a human and expecting God to behave like a human. That is the fallacy of false equivalence

False equivalence is a logical fallacy in which an equivalence is drawn between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning. This fallacy is categorized as a fallacy of inconsistency.[1] A colloquial expression of false equivalency is "comparing apples and oranges".

This fallacy is committed when one shared trait between two subjects is assumed to show equivalence, especially in order of magnitude, when equivalence is not necessarily the logical result.[2] False equivalence is a common result when an anecdotal similarity is pointed out as equal, but the claim of equivalence doesn't bear scrutiny because the similarity is based on oversimplification or ignorance of additional factors.
False equivalence - Wikipedia

The Meaning of Comparing Apples to Oranges When you're comparing apples to oranges, you're comparing two things that are fundamentally different and, therefore, shouldn't be compared.
Comparing Apples to Oranges - Idiom, Meaning & Origin

God does not have behavior so God cannot be responsible for any inaction.

From a previous post you said morality does not apply to God.
Behavior is how someone or something acts.

So then you believe God lacks morality and does nothing?

Interesting argument but ok. I guess I won't disagree with that.

 

[Trailblazer]

From a previous post you said morality does not apply to God.
Behavior is how someone or something acts.

So then you believe God lacks morality and does nothing?

Interesting argument but ok. I guess I won't disagree with that.

Please note the definitions of moral and morality and that they apply to human character and human behavior.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. moral means - Google Search

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Morality does not apply to God because God is not a human. God is all-good by His nature, so God cannot be bad.

God does not have behavior because God is not a human. God has a mind and a will so God wills things to happen. Whatever God wills is for the good of humanity, even if we sometimes perceive it as bad.

 

[Nakosis]

Please note the definitions of moral and morality and that they apply to human character and human behavior.

moral: concerned with the principles of right and wrong behavior and the goodness or badness of human character. moral means - Google Search

Morality is the belief that some behaviour is right and acceptable and that other behaviour is wrong. ... A morality is a system of principles and values concerning people's behaviour, which is generally accepted by a society or by a particular group of people.
Morality definition and meaning | Collins English Dictionary

Morality does not apply to God because God is not a human. God is all-good by His nature, so God cannot be bad.

However you are applying morality to God when you said God is all-good by nature.

God does not have behavior because God is not a human. God has a mind and a will so God wills things to happen. Whatever God wills is for the good of humanity, even if we sometimes perceive it as bad.

You don't have to be human to have behavior. Behavior is just how something acts. Human or otherwise. For example the behavior of the moon is that it circles around the earth. And again you are applying morality to God by saying whatever God wills is for the good of humanity.

 

[Brian2]

The following is a post from an atheist I was chatting with on another forum. I told him I would post it here to get other opinions.

Nothing you said addresses that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. The only argument you could make is that God is either not all powerful, not all knowing, or not perfectly good. Which is it? The badly written, badly edited, contradictory, book Christians follow makes no sense to anyone who's read it that can think. Heck you don't even have anything written about your God from the people who met him. So use logic, you can't have infinite power and not be responsible for everything.

responsibility
something that it is your job or duty to deal with:

• It's her responsibility to ensure the project finishes on time.
• She takes her responsibilities as a nurse very seriously.

responsibility

If God is responsible for everything that happens, that means that nobody else has any responsibility and can do anything, thinking that God is responsible for what they do.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God is responsible for everything that happens, that means that nobody else has any responsibility and can do anything, thinking that God is responsible for what they do.

But God is not responsible for everything that happens. God is only responsible for what He does, and humans are responsible for what they do.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

The following is a post from an atheist I was chatting with on another forum. I told him I would post it here to get other opinions.

Nothing you said addresses that with ultimate power comes ultimate responsibility. The only argument you could make is that God is either not all powerful, not all knowing, or not perfectly good. Which is it? The badly written, badly edited, contradictory, book Christians follow makes no sense to anyone who's read it that can think. Heck you don't even have anything written about your God from the people who met him. So use logic, you can't have infinite power and not be responsible for everything.

responsibility
something that it is your job or duty to deal with:

• It's her responsibility to ensure the project finishes on time.
• She takes her responsibilities as a nurse very seriously.

responsibility

Keep on reading further down the page.

responsibility noun (BLAME)​

[ U ]
the cause of a particular action or situation, esp. a harmful or unpleasant one:

The cause of a thing has responsibility for the thing. It's virtually a tautology.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

But God is not responsible for everything that happens. God is only responsible for what He does, and humans are responsible for what they do.

Is the existence of humans part of "what God does"?

 

[Trailblazer]

The cause of a thing has responsibility for the thing. It's virtually a tautology.

You are absolutely correct. God created the world so God was the cause of creation.
As such God is responsible for the way He created the world, with all its potentialities for good and evil, for sadness and happiness.

 

[Trailblazer]

Is the existence of humans part of "what God does"?

Yes, since God caused humans to evolve.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Yes, since God caused humans to evolve.

Then humanity's actions - and their consequences - are part of what God is responsible for.

And to the extent that humanity's actions were foreseeable by God, God is culpable aa well.

 

[Trailblazer]

Then humanity's actions - and their consequences - are part of what God is responsible for.

No, God is not responsible for humanity's freely chosen actions or their consequences.

And to the extent that humanity's actions were foreseeable by God, God is culpable aa well.

The fact that God can foresee what we are going to choose to do does not make God responsible for what we choose to do.
God's foreknowledge has no bearing upon what we choose to do.

An astronomer, by mathematical calculations, knows when and where an eclipse is going to occur. Does that mean the astronomer is responsible for the eclipse taking place?

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

No, God is not responsible for humanity's freely chosen actions or their consequences.

If God caused humanity, then God caused the effects of humanity.

The fact that God can foresee what we are going to choose to do does not make God responsible for what we choose to do.

I said culpable, not responsible (though he would be both).

God's foreknowledge has no bearing upon what we choose to do.

An astronomer, by mathematical calculations, knows when and where an eclipse is going to occur. Does that mean the astronomer is responsible for the eclipse taking place?

The astronomer didn't cause the Sun or the Moon.

God would be responsible for anything he caused. God would also be culpable for any effects he knew would happen and caused.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God caused humanity, then God caused the effects of humanity.

No, that is illogical.

A car manufacturer builds a car that can go very fast, way over the speed limit.
A man buys that car and drives it way over the speed limit and that man crashes and kills a carload of people.
It is not the car manufacturer who is to blame, it is the man who bought the car and drove recklessly.
If there was a trial, the car manufacturer would not even be brought into a courtroom.
Only the man who drove the car way over the speed limit and crashed would be held responsible.

I said culpable, not responsible (though he would be both).

God would not be culpable or responsible because God's foreknowledge does not CAUSE anything to happen..

The astronomer didn't cause the Sun or the Moon.

God did not cause the car in the above example to crash.

God would be responsible for anything he caused.

Correct, but only for what He caused.

Case in point:
Parents are responsible for their children because they caused them to come into existence by procreating, but after their children grow up and are on their own the parents are no longer responsible for their children.

God would also be culpable for any effects he knew would happen and caused.

God would only be culpable for what He caused.
God is not culpable for what He knows will happen.

Let's say that I know that my husband is going to die of cancer since he was diagnosed and that was the prognosis.
Am I culpable for his death just because I know he is going to die?

 

[CG Didymus]

If God caused humanity, then God caused the effects of humanity.

Then there are times when people are hurt or killed by "acts" of God.

 

[Brian2]

But God is not responsible for everything that happens. God is only responsible for what He does, and humans are responsible for what they do.

Yes that is true.
Your atheist friend is just using the "omniscient, omnipotent, all good" argument about God that is common on this forum and is presenting it in slightly different language.