The Static (and Immoral?) God

[Carpedm9587]

This discussion has surfaced in a few threads. It came up (sort of) in the thread on why god would create imperfection. It surfaced in the endless (and pointless) thread on Jim E's so-called "devastating arguments."

It is often claimed by theists that their god is atemporal. This is often expressed as outside of time," but that phrase is pretty misleading. When pushed, they define this to mean "able to move freely through time." So just as god is everywhere, god is everywhen.

If we assume this god exists, for the sake of argument, it seems to me a couple of problems manifest. First, this god willingly creates beings he/she/it KNOWS will not turn to god, which (according to some christian theologists) translates into an eternity of punishment/suffering. Yet, knowing this is the outcome and it will not change, god elects to create these beings anyway. Using all of the arguments as they have been presented concerning free will, god COULD only choose to create those being god knows will turn to him, without impeding their free will one iota, and simply not create the other ones at all. Yet god does not choose this course, oddly enough. That seems to raise some moral issues as well. If one creates a thing knowing it will do evil, does one not bear some of the moral responsibility for creating the thing?

Let's say that I create a robot tomorrow. I create it to be a free and independent being with advanced artificial intelligence, so it has the ability to analyze and choose for itself. Because of the way the circuitry in the robot works, I KNOW, without question and without doubt (yes, I know I don't believe that is possible, but Christians seem to so we'll assume knowing without doubt is possible - it is for their god apparently), that this robot will run amok and kill. Sure enough, I create it and it runs amok and kills. I am brought up on charges and my defense is "I gave it advanced AI and it made its own choices - so I am not culpable." I am reasonably sure, if the defense could show that I knew in advance it would do exactly what it did, I would be held liable for creating such a being. Yet this god appears to be free of such moral culpability.

There is also a justice issue here. Justice is about balance. The crime fits the punishment. Here we have a god who is in a position to avoid the need to damn by simply not creating the being this god foreknows will need to be damned, but does not elect to do so. Instead, this god apparently creates beings, knowing they will fail, and then damns them when they do. Indeed, the problem goes further. It is clearly possible to create a being that freely chooses god. It's not a matter of "free will" here. There are beings with free will that have what it takes to choose god - and then there are those who apparently don't. Yet, god creates them with what they have and what they don't have. What is it that is missing in the people who don't choose god, and why did god create them without that ability, inclination, etc.?

There is also the problem that this god is now essentially static. This god does not appear static to any being that is limited temporally, because we experience time unfolding and experience changes all around us. But this god is unable to change him/her/itself, or the universe, or anything else (as if there WERE something else ) for that matter. If god knows all of time as one, all of time has, it would seem, "already happened" for god. How could it be altered from what god already foreknows without hitting a pretty nasty contradiction?

Anyway, this seemed rather interesting. I thought I'd toss it out for folks to chew on a bit. I'm curious to know what people think.

Michel

[Littlejoe]

Hey Michel,

Many of the problems you state, are exactly why I became an adherent to Open Theism. I believe that God is not static, but dynamic. The problem of evil is also resolved (I think) with OVT. You see, I don't think classic omniscience is supported by the Bible, and that it was adopted into Western christianity through Plato, et al, via St. Augustine. This is probably controversial with some of my christian brothers, but it's what I think most lines up with scripture. Whether God is temporal or Atemporal, I don't think you can determine from scripture. My feeling is that the Jews believed him to be temporal. But I can't back that up I don't think.

LJ

[nickcopernicus]

This discussion has surfaced in a few threads. It came up (sort of) in the thread on why god would create imperfection. It surfaced in the endless (and pointless) thread on Jim E's so-called "devastating arguments."

.....
Anyway, this seemed rather interesting. I thought I'd toss it out for folks to chew on a bit. I'm curious to know what people think.

Michel

NICK:

Hello Michel. I like this argument. Actually, it was the first one that I brought forth when I joined T-Web. I've yet to have seen a resolution for it.

Let me see if I can put it in a semi formal argument.
("god" here will mean the Christian god)

1. For all of god's actions, if God has free will and makes decisions then god is able to ponder hypotheticals.
3. God has free will and makes decisions
4. God is able to ponder hypotheticals.
5. For all actions, if a being is able to omnisciently* ponder hypothetical effects to decisions of moral actions then that being is at least partially morally responsible for the effects of which the being had hypothetical foreknowledge.
6. God considered the hypothetical effects of A and B (where A = create humans and B = Not create humans)
7. God knew that if he chose option A then Evil would be the result. (man will sin)
8. God chose option A
9. God is at least partially morally responsible for (man will sin).
10. sin is evil
ergo
11. God is at least partially morally responsible for evil.

As for some objections here is the main one:

1. God is not responsible. He just holds the chicken, how we copulate with it is our decision, not god's

The main problem with this goes back to if I decide to give a serial killer a car, a gun and the address of a remote house in the woods were a nice mother and her children live then probably, I would be arrested as an acoomplice to murder in a court of law. Perhaps our laws are unjust

To say that god is morally exempt from the decisions of his creations is to engage in special pleading if one ascribes to moral absolutism, objectivism, realtivism, subjectivism, many forms of moral contextualism and almost all forms of moral consequentialism. Idealistically, congress must ascribe to the laws that they write. Idealistically, if I subjectivly decide that it is immoral for x to happen, then for me to knowingly provide person A with the means to cause x to come into play is to be inconsistent and thereby irrational.


Does that pretty much sum it up?
As for the whole exist outside of time, I think I've pretty much proved that if god exists outside of time then he has no free will because he does not take time to make a decision and there was no time in which he decided to do anything, ergo he made no decision.... He's not much different then gravity if he "exists outside of time".

Cheers,

Nick



*Here- I will borrow my definiton of omniscience partially from Plantinga.
Omniscience means that a being knows all p where p is a true propostion. For hypothetical omniscience, a being will know all p where p is if x then y, in other words.
It's true that "if I Ask that girl out, then she will say yes."

[Carpedm9587]

NICK:

Hello Michel. I like this argument. Actually, it was the first one that I brought forth when I joined T-Web. I've yet to have seen a resolution for it.

Let me see if I can put it in a semi formal argument.
("god" here will mean the Christian god)

1. For all of god's actions, if God has free will and makes decisions then god is able to ponder hypotheticals.
3. God has free will and makes decisions
4. God is able to ponder hypotheticals.
5. For all actions, if a being is able to omnisciently* ponder hypothetical effects to decisions of moral actions then that being is at least partially morally responsible for the effects of which the being had hypothetical foreknowledge.
6. God considered the hypothetical effects of A and B (where A = create humans and B = Not create humans)
7. God knew that if he chose option A then Evil would be the result. (man will sin)
8. God chose option A
9. God is at least partially morally responsible for (man will sin).
10. sin is evil
ergo
11. God is at least partially morally responsible for evil.

As for some objections here is the main one:

1. God is not responsible. He just holds the chicken, how we copulate with it is our decision, not god's

The main problem with this goes back to if I decide to give a serial killer a car, a gun and the address of a remote house in the woods were a nice mother and her children live then probably, I would be arrested as an accomplice to murder in a court of law. Perhaps our laws are unjust

To say that god is morally exempt from the decisions of his creations is to engage in special pleading if one ascribes to moral absolutism, objectivism, relativism, subjectivism, many forms of moral contextualism and almost all forms of moral consequentialism. Idealistically, congress must ascribe to the laws that they write. Idealistically, if I subjectively decide that it is immoral for x to happen, then for me to knowingly provide person A with the means to cause x to come into play is to be inconsistent and thereby irrational.


Does that pretty much sum it up?
As for the whole exist outside of time, I think I've pretty much proved that if god exists outside of time then he has no free will because he does not take time to make a decision and there was no time in which he decided to do anything, ergo he made no decision.... He's not much different then gravity if he "exists outside of time".

Cheers,

Nick



*Here- I will borrow my definition of omniscience partially from Plantinga.
Omniscience means that a being knows all p where p is a true propostion. For hypothetical omniscience, a being will know all p where p is if x then y, in other words.
It's true that "if I Ask that girl out, then she will say yes."

I'm not sure I agree with this 100%, but it's close.

However, the problem of evil has an interesting nuance. One of the common rebuttals is that god had to create people with free will, otherwise we would be automatons. And god's knowledge of what we do is not control, so free will is preserved. But that is not the case.

When we look across all of the population of humanity, some "turn to god" and some do not. God knows this by virtue of his omniscience - his perfect knowledge (which, by some, accounts includes the future). God knows exactly who will and will not "be saved."

He could simply use that knowledge to NOT create those who will not be saved, and create only those that will be. By the same argument that was made in other discussions, this knowledge does not impede free will whatsoever. The result is a universe full of people who love god, all of whom have freely chosen to, with no constraint on their free will, and no need for a "hell." It might even eliminate the need for a "salvation" plan if god were to begin his human "series" with the first person who does NOT reject him (instead of Adam - this would be the "new Adam), and only creating those who NEVER reject him, not just those who turn to him before the end of their life.

Yet neither of these is the course taken. God proceeds with the creation of beings he foreknows will not make the right choices, for whatever reason, knowing from the outset they will be damned.

It's an interesting dilemma.

Michel

[Carpedm9587]

Hey Michel,

Many of the problems you state, are exactly why I became an adherent to Open Theism. I believe that God is not static, but dynamic. The problem of evil is also resolved (I think) with OVT. You see, I don't think classic omniscience is supported by the Bible, and that it was adopted into Western christianity through Plato, et al, via St. Augustine. This is probably controversial with some of my christian brothers, but it's what I think most lines up with scripture. Whether God is temporal or Atemporal, I don't think you can determine from scripture. My feeling is that the Jews believed him to be temporal. But I can't back that up I don't think.

LJ

I would agree that a changable god that is not omniscient (e.g., doesn't know the future because the future does not exist and cannot be known) would elimkinate many of these problems. The problems don't demonstrate that no god exists, merely that particular kind of god.

Michel

[Zeluvia]

I would agree that a changable god that is not omniscient (e.g., doesn't know the future because the future does not exist and cannot be known) would elimkinate many of these problems. The problems don't demonstrate that no god exists, merely that particular kind of god.

Michel

But, once you remove omniscience, the salvation "plan" starts to fall apart....doesn't it?

[Littlejoe]

But, once you remove omniscience, the salvation "plan" starts to fall apart....doesn't it?

Why?

[Zeluvia]

I don't know, I am thinking about that....

[Littlejoe]

I don't know, I am thinking about that....

AFAICS, it would only cause a problem with reformed/calvinist theology.

[Zeluvia]

So, without omniscience, god didn't know humans would eat the apple....and cause original sin....

god didn't know he would have to destroy everyone in the flood....he didn't know if the flood would work, but he still promised not to do another one...

he didn't know he would have to wait a few thousand years after the flood, and then send his son to die for us...

and he has no clue who wins the final battle between himself as his son and Satan...

nor does he know when he is going to send his son back....

in fact, he has no idea what his son will do, maybe join with Satan....

so he has NO plan for each individual, and he wasn't even sure the sacrafice of his son would be enough to redeem humanity....

right?

this god is clearly imperfect, and working through his issues, and doesn't exist independent of time right?

[KingDavid8]

If we assume this god exists, for the sake of argument, it seems to me a couple of problems manifest. First, this god willingly creates beings he/she/it KNOWS will not turn to god, which (according to some christian theologists) translates into an eternity of punishment/suffering. Yet, knowing this is the outcome and it will not change, god elects to create these beings anyway. Using all of the arguments as they have been presented concerning free will, god COULD only choose to create those being god knows will turn to him, without impeding their free will one iota, and simply not create the other ones at all. Yet god does not choose this course, oddly enough. That seems to raise some moral issues as well. If one creates a thing knowing it will do evil, does one not bear some of the moral responsibility for creating the thing?

Problems:
1) Many believers are descended from non-believers. Both of my parents are non-believers (my mom's an atheist, my dad's agnostic), and I used to be an atheist myself, yet now I believe. Had God not created my parents, or refused to create me because I would have been a non-believer for a while, then right here is one believer who would not exist, one way or the other. So even assuming that God is interested in having as many believers as possible (though I don't believe that this is His primary concern for us, or that the only reason for my parents existed was to create me), not creating non-believers would mean that fewer believers exist.
2) God is concerned with what is best for the human race as a whole in the long run. Unless we're arguing that non-believers are of no benefit to the human race (which isn't the case), then God's not creating them wouldn't be of benefit to the human race.
3) What about specific people? Yes, you could probably point to individuals who have done horrible things, such as Hitler, Torquemada, Charles Manson, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, and Yanni (j/k) and ask why God didn't not-create them, but I believe that the human race has learned from them and their atrocities and grown morally and spiritually as a result. I feel that the human race is more morally enlightened now that it's ever been before, and will probably become more enlightened in the future (and I'm not saying more religious, but more empathetic and loving towards its fellow man) and it's largely due to our seeing what these jerks have done and its increasing of our conviction to stand in the way if we ever see people doing the same. Sometimes you have to see the bad in order to desire the good even more. God is more interested in our growth than in our comfort, just as a wise parent is more interested in having their child face trials and tribulations and become a better person for having overcome them, than in just making sure that their child lives as comfortable a life as possible, getting everything they desire. Keep in mind, though, that the child in this analogy isn't necessarily us as individuals, but the human race as a whole.

No man is an island, as they say. The things we do don't just affect ourselves, but everyone else as well. Had God not created you, it wouldn't just have affected you, but also affected everyone you've ever come in contact with (in either small or large ways), and the good that I'm sure you've done in this world would never have gotten done. And even the bad that I'm sure you've done in this world (we all have) could have led to situations which have taught or in some other way benefitted other people. Are you saying that this world would be a better place if you'd never existed? I don't know you that well, but still I kind of doubt that.

Have you ever seen the movie "It's A Wonderful Life?" (it's one of my favorites). It's true that George Bailey was apparently a believer, but the benefits he unknowingly gave to the human race weren't the kind of things that only a believer would have done.

Let's say that I create a robot tomorrow. I create it to be a free and independent being with advanced artificial intelligence, so it has the ability to analyze and choose for itself. Because of the way the circuitry in the robot works, I KNOW, without question and without doubt (yes, I know I don't believe that is possible, but Christians seem to so we'll assume knowing without doubt is possible - it is for their god apparently), that this robot will run amok and kill. Sure enough, I create it and it runs amok and kills. I am brought up on charges and my defense is "I gave it advanced AI and it made its own choices - so I am not culpable." I am reasonably sure, if the defense could show that I knew in advance it would do exactly what it did, I would be held liable for creating such a being. Yet this god appears to be free of such moral culpability.

What if it only killed other robots that you also built, and its killing of those robots taught the surviving robots how to be more empathetic and to better care for each other, thus increasing the level of empathy and moral understanding among those robots and thus being of benefit to them as a whole in the long run?

There is also a justice issue here. Justice is about balance. The crime fits the punishment. Here we have a god who is in a position to avoid the need to damn by simply not creating the being this god foreknows will need to be damned, but does not elect to do so. Instead, this god apparently creates beings, knowing they will fail, and then damns them when they do. Indeed, the problem goes further. It is clearly possible to create a being that freely chooses god. It's not a matter of "free will" here. There are beings with free will that have what it takes to choose god - and then there are those who apparently don't. Yet, god creates them with what they have and what they don't have. What is it that is missing in the people who don't choose god, and why did god create them without that ability, inclination, etc.?

God wanted people to have the free will to choose Him or not, and getting rid of those who would not choose Him (aside from the fact that they frequently have descendants who would choose Him and are frequently of benefit to the human race in many ways) ultimately is a violation of free will. Saying that you can choose A or B, but taking option B off the table one way or the other, really leaves you with no choice but to choose A. And what about people who chose B, but then later changed their mind and chose A? And what about people who chose A only because they saw other people choose B and didn't like the results as they saw them, and thus chose A because of that?

Personally, my faith in God has grown stronger through my debates with atheists here on TWeb and on other chat boards. They've tested my faith, and I believe it's become stronger through this test. No, I'm not saying that all of you atheists were put here to be of benefit to me personally, but I do believe that you've all been of benefit to the human race one way or the other.

And besides that, wouldn't you rather live and die than not live at all? I suppose that if we're assuming that the non-believer suffers eternal physical torture after this world is over, that he probably would have rather not existed in the first place, but I (and many other Christians) don't believe that Hell is any such thing, that God would never make a punishment exceed the crime.

There is also the problem that this god is now essentially static. This god does not appear static to any being that is limited temporally, because we experience time unfolding and experience changes all around us. But this god is unable to change him/her/itself, or the universe, or anything else (as if there WERE something else ) for that matter. If god knows all of time as one, all of time has, it would seem, "already happened" for god. How could it be altered from what god already foreknows without hitting a pretty nasty contradiction?

Foreknowledge isn't just knowing what will happen, but what would happen if God changed certain things. Sending Jesus certainly changed things for the human race, and I believe that God knew what would have happened had He not sent Jesus (though we cannot), and what would have happened if He had, and also knew what would have happened had He sent Jesus at a different time, and sent Jesus when He did knowing that this option was best for us as a whole in the long run. I believe that God does make decisions and change things about this world, certainly not in the same kind of time frame as it appears to us that He has, but instead before the world existed in some kind of sense, but He has changed things.

David

[Littlejoe]

So, without omniscience, god didn't know humans would eat the apple....and cause original sin....

That's right, however, I'm sure he knew it was a definite possibility. That's why He had the plan of "The Lamb slain since the foundation of the world" (Rev 13:8)

god didn't know he would have to destroy everyone in the flood....he didn't know if the flood would work, but he still promised not to do another one...

Look at what Genesis 6:5-6 says: Then the LORD[b] saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, and that every intent of the thoughts of his heart was only evil continually. 6 And the LORD was sorry that He had made man on the earth, and He was grieved in His heart.

If he knew for sure man was going to need destroying, why would he be sorry he had made man in the first place?

he didn't know he would have to wait a few thousand years after the flood, and then send his son to die for us...

This he did know he might have to do. see above. (Rev 13:8)

and he has no clue who wins the final battle between himself as his son and Satan...

Don't mistake the fact that he is still omnipotent.

nor does he know when he is going to send his son back....

Also realize, He does know what He has PLANNED to do. This will be done according to his plan and purpose. (Isaiah 46:9-10)

in fact, he has no idea what his son will do, maybe join with Satan...

so he has NO plan for each individual, and he wasn't even sure the sacrafice of his son would be enough to redeem humanity....

right?

No not right. Your mixing your terminology. Omniscience (I am talking about the EDF kind of omniscience here) is not the same thing as his will and plans he has for us. He has plans, purposes, and a master plan if you will. He WILL accomplish those. But in order for us to have free will, he can't know every decision we will make without that becoming destiny or fate. Do you see?
He also knew his son would redeem humanity, and it has. Some people choose not to accept the free gift of redemption. An analogy of this would be like this: say you won a free weekend stay at a really nice hotel for two, along with all the meals included. All you have to do is "show up", check in and enjoy yourselves. If on the day you are supposed to check in, you decide that you would rather stay home and visit with you grandchildren. Was you hotel stay and meals not paid for? Of course they were! You simply chose not to take advantage of the free gift. His death, burial and resurrection accomplished its purpose!

this god is clearly imperfect, and working through his issues, and doesn't exist independent of time right?

Imperfect? No, has he limited his own omniscience to allow for our free will? yes. He still is in control, and can counteract our poor decisions. The only issues He has, are our stupid, greedy, petulant selves who continually make the wrong decisions, instead of following him. As I said, I'm not sure about the time issue. I had never really gave that aspect much thought really. why do you think that is relevant that he be out of time?

LJ

[Carpedm9587]

Problems:
1) Many believers are descended from non-believers. Both of my parents are non-believers (my mom's an atheist, my dad's agnostic), and I used to be an atheist myself, yet now I believe. Had God not created my parents, or refused to create me because I would have been a non-believer for a while, then right here is one believer who would not exist, one way or the other. So even assuming that God is interested in having as many believers as possible (though I don't believe that this is His primary concern for us, or that the only reason for my parents existed was to create me), not creating non-believers would mean that fewer believers exist.

Unfortunately, KD, I don't think this works. Presumably god can conceive of an infinite number of humans who can/will turn to god, and an infinite number of humans who cannot/will not. God does not create ALL of these humans. A human that is not created has no claim on existence. It simply does not exist. You're thinking from the perspective of someone who already DOES exist. Someone who has never existed and is never created has no claim on existence. So if keeping your parents from existing because they would never turn to him means you don't exist, I don't see the problem. YOU see the problem because you already exist and the idea of not existing doesn't appeal very much, I'm sure. On the other hand, god is god - god can do anything. So you could very easily have been born the son of a different set of parents. That unfortunately, gets us into what makes you you, and to what degree you would have to be tampered with to create YOU. God, however, could have designed a different set of rules around genetic inheritance making it possible for people to be born with a genome different than their parent's, or without the need for a genome at all.

2) God is concerned with what is best for the human race as a whole in the long run. Unless we're arguing that non-believers are of no benefit to the human race (which isn't the case), then God's not creating them wouldn't be of benefit to the human race.

That's a stretch, KD. A pretty far fetched one as well. You're trying to make the case that the people who do not turn to god someone enhance and better the human race as a whole? And their existence, and subsequent perpetual suffering, is required for the entire human race to be better? You're going to have a difficult time making that case.

3) What about specific people? Yes, you could probably point to individuals who have done horrible things, such as Hitler, Torquemada, Charles Manson, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, and Yanni (j/k) and ask why God didn't not-create them, but I believe that the human race has learned from them and their atrocities and grown morally and spiritually as a result. I feel that the human race is more morally enlightened now that it's ever been before, and will probably become more enlightened in the future (and I'm not saying more religious, but more empathetic and loving towards its fellow man) and it's largely due to our seeing what these jerks have done and its increasing of our conviction to stand in the way if we ever see people doing the same. Sometimes you have to see the bad in order to desire the good even more. God is more interested in our growth than in our comfort, just as a wise parent is more interested in having their child face trials and tribulations and become a better person for having overcome them, than in just making sure that their child lives as comfortable a life as possible, getting everything they desire. Keep in mind, though, that the child in this analogy isn't necessarily us as individuals, but the human race as a whole.

And this misses the point entirely, KD. You're thinking of the world as it IS, not the world as it could be. It is very hard to imagine that an entire universe populated by beings that have freely chosen you god to love and worship is somehow made better by tossing a Hitler into the mix. And that still returns us to the problem of creating sentient beings you know are going to be eternally damned for the sole purpose of somehow making the ones who are NOT damned "better."

No man is an island, as they say. The things we do don't just affect ourselves, but everyone else as well. Had God not created you, it wouldn't just have affected you, but also affected everyone you've ever come in contact with (in either small or large ways), and the good that I'm sure you've done in this world would never have gotten done. And even the bad that I'm sure you've done in this world (we all have) could have led to situations which have taught or in some other way benefited other people. Are you saying that this world would be a better place if you'd never existed? I don't know you that well, but still I kind of doubt that.

Again, KD, you are talking about a comparison of what is with this alternate world. What IS would not exist if god had elected to create differently. The universe would be full of people who love and acknowledge and worship this god, and the others would not even be considered. The idea of not loving god would be a bizarre one to these people. Your argument is somewhat like saying "there is something wrong with the universe because Beatrice Fluxbottom doesn't exist." Well Beatrice Fluxbottom has never been born and never existed. Do you walk around wondering how impoverished the universe is because she doesn't exist?

Have you ever seen the movie "It's A Wonderful Life?" (it's one of my favorites). It's true that George Bailey was apparently a believer, but the benefits he unknowingly gave to the human race weren't the kind of things that only a believer would have done.

Again, DK - your entire argument is from the perspective of people who exist today ceasing to exist. If god had created only those who turned to him, none of these people would exist and none of us would be the wiser. The universe would appear complete, lines of progeny unbroken, etc. If god foresaw that the offspring of a particular couple would not love and admire him, they would simply never be born. How much thought do you give every day to the sperm and eggs in this universe that did NOT unite?

What if it only killed other robots that you also built, and its killing of those robots taught the surviving robots how to be more empathetic and to better care for each other, thus increasing the level of empathy and moral understanding among those robots and thus being of benefit to them as a whole in the long run?

Now this is an interesting response. I can only speak for myself, but if the ONLY way for me to create a sentient robot was to create them knowing they would kill one another and, by that means, some number of them would become "better" I would not create them at all until I found a better or different way. And if I didn't, I wouldn't. I came to that conclusion by looking at myself as a parent. If I had the ability to see the future of my children, and I knew that the only way to have a moral empathetic child was to have 20 of them, knowing that the first 5 would be violent and kill one another and several of their innocent siblings, but that this would teach the remaining few how to be good people and they would go on and thrive, I would have a vasectomy.

God wanted people to have the free will to choose Him or not, and getting rid of those who would not choose Him (aside from the fact that they frequently have descendants who would choose Him and are frequently of benefit to the human race in many ways) ultimately is a violation of free will.

Sorry, KD, but this doesn't wash. God is not "getting rid of" anyone. God is not creating to begin with. There is no one to "get rid of." You cannot violate the free will of a being that does not exist.

Saying that you can choose A or B, but taking option B off the table one way or the other, really leaves you with no choice but to choose A.

Ahh.. suddenly the rules change? When presented with the argument that "prescience constrains free will" your response is "prescience is not the same as determinism" and we get "god foreknowing does not mean god is controlling." But now, when god uses that prescience to ONLY create those who will freely choose him, he is "interfering with free will?" Sorry, KD, but it doesn't wash. In this scenario, God has not altered has actions or behaviors towards those who freely choose him one iota. They are created and live exactly as they did before, free to choose and free of god's control. ALL god does is NOT create those who he foreknows will not choose him. As you noted before, foreknowing is not the same as controlling. And the only change in god's behavior is to those who would NOT choose him. And he is not violating their free will because they never exist to BE violated. You cannot make a claim that this is a violation of free will here without running into the wall of your own argument to date.

And what about people who chose B, but then later changed their mind and chose A? And what about people who chose A only because they saw other people choose B and didn't like the results as they saw them, and thus chose A because of that?

God foreknows, KD, and his foreknowledge is perfect. You don't think a mere human could "fool god" do you? That somehow this human tricks god into not foreknowing correctly?

Personally, my faith in God has grown stronger through my debates with atheists here on TWeb and on other chat boards. They've tested my faith, and I believe it's become stronger through this test. No, I'm not saying that all of you atheists were put here to be of benefit to me personally, but I do believe that you've all been of benefit to the human race one way or the other.

So why does "stronger" make a difference? Once you are saved, is it worth the eternal torment of those who will not choose your god so that your faith can be a "bit stronger?" If your faith was foreseen as not being adequate to god, in this model, you simply would not exist. If it is, then why does it have to be "stronger" at the cost of eternal damnation for those on whom you get to "whet the knife of your faith?"

And besides that, wouldn't you rather live and die than not live at all?

No. There are some kinds of life I would rather not have. And if a finite life is to be followed by an eternity of damnation, I would prefer not to exist at all.

I suppose that if we're assuming that the non-believer suffers eternal physical torture after this world is over, that he probably would have rather not existed in the first place, but I (and many other Christians) don't believe that Hell is any such thing, that God would never make a punishment exceed the crime.

I have no idea what the latest fad around the nature of hell is. There have been to many models to keep track of. But, IMO, any eternal punishment for a finite transgression (or infinite reward for finite virtue) is already off the scale of justice. A finite cannot balance with an infinite.

And apparently, your god DOES have this model. I am not atheist because I "choose" to be. I am atheist because that is what the evidence leads me to believe. I could no more "choose" to believe there is a god right now than I could "choose" to believe 2+2=5. If I uttered the words, "I believe there is a god and I trust in him/her/it fully," I would be flat out lying. If/when there is sufficient evidence that leads me to believe there is a god, I will (again) believe there is a god. Until there is, I cannot. God, knowing this, could have simply elected not to create me and sapre me an eternity of damnation.

Foreknowledge isn't just knowing what will happen, but what would happen if God changed certain things. Sending Jesus certainly changed things for the human race, and I believe that God knew what would have happened had He not sent Jesus (though we cannot), and what would have happened if He had, and also knew what would have happened had He sent Jesus at a different time, and sent Jesus when He did knowing that this option was best for us as a whole in the long run. I believe that God does make decisions and change things about this world, certainly not in the same kind of time frame as it appears to us that He has, but instead before the world existed in some kind of sense, but He has changed things.

To quote "Back to the Future," you are not thinking fourth dimensionally. We live as beings constrained in the four dimensions, and basically only aware of these four. Your god is not constrained in these four. This god is everywhen and everywhere. All that exists is changeless for this god. It is not changeless for us because we have to live out this temporal sequence, so it all appears to be changing. But not for god. All that is, was, or will be is fixed. God may be able to see all possibilities, but god knows the possibility that will be as well as the ones that have been and are. There is no "before" or "after" to this god.

There is even some question as to whether this god can actually make a decision, since all decisions are, in effect, fore-made for all time. God is not responding to circumstances. All circumstances are not only known by god, but the responses determined and accomplished. God is literally the alpha and omega - already knowing and experiencing all that is, was, or will be.

It has to be the most depressing vision of existence I can imagine. If I were god, I would be a screaming with the cosmic boredom of it all.

Michel

[Red Wine]

I'm late on this complex and interesting thread and about to go to sleep. But drawing rabbits from a dusty hat, could it be more precise to say that apart from the first two humans, purportedly created perfect, the others were allowed to exist, or known to follow, or a biological consequence of that first creative act, or some better definition? I mean not created, ex nihilo as such like Adam and Eve. Just a thought.

And I guess we humans bring children into the world knowing they will suffer and die. Are we ok with that self-appraisal? If we say 'but if we had the power to stop death and tragedy in the lives of our children, we would, yet God doesn't' we must then consistently engineer every aspect of our child's life towards what we deem acceptable, or we must fight the urge to produce off-spring. Also a quick snippet of news I saw the other night on mapping genetic faults, future-babies and etc, had 4 out of 5 kind, loving good-natured British parents saying they would not like to know of any medical, or other, genetic problem of their child in advance; they'd let the cards fall where they may and, to be really frank, this surprised me quite alot (as I naturally considered the metaphysical ramifications while I watched it). Lol.

In any case, we don't seem to want to have the knowledge of, and possible means of off-setting, at least, the physical and psychological fates of our off-spring, whereas God by default does. What this means at this woolly-headed time of morning I don't know lol.

[Carpedm9587]

I'm late on this complex and interesting thread and about to go to sleep. But drawing rabbits from a dusty hat, could it be more precise to say that apart from the first two humans, purportedly created perfect, the others were allowed to exist, or known to follow, or a biological consequence of that first creative act, or some better definition? I mean not created, ex nihilo as such like Adam and Eve. Just a thought.

If we assume the existence of Adam/Eve for the sake of argument, yes, this is an accurate description of what IS. It is not an accurate description of what MUST be. There is no necessary condition, that I can think of, that requires life to be as it is now, or that prohibits god from interfering and preventing the conception of a human who is foreknown to be one that will never turn to god.

And I guess we humans bring children into the world knowing they will suffer and die. Are we OK with that self-appraisal?

Yes, we do, and I'm OK with it.

If we say 'but if we had the power to stop death and tragedy in the lives of our children, we would, yet God doesn't' we must then consistently engineer every aspect of our child's life towards what we deem acceptable, or we must fight the urge to produce off-spring.

Perhaps, in the Christian worldview this might be more consistent. It is not consistent in the atheist worldview.

Also a quick snippet of news I saw the other night on mapping genetic faults, future-babies and etc, had 4 out of 5 kind, loving good-natured British parents saying they would not like to know of any medical, or other, genetic problem of their child in advance; they'd let the cards fall where they may and, to be really frank, this surprised me quite a lot (as I naturally considered the metaphysical ramifications while I watched it). Lol.

I'm not sure how this applies, since a human does not have perfect foreknowledge.

In any case, we don't seem to want to have the knowledge of, and possible means of off-setting, at least, the physical and psychological fates of our off-spring, whereas God by default does. What this means at this woolly-headed time of morning I don't know lol.

I can't say what the god of Christian conception "wants." Apparently, this god DOES know everything and cannot simply choose "not to know" everything (although this is also a problem that gets raised with Jesus being both fully god and fully man).

And I'm not sure where you're going either!

But it IS an interesting issue, no?

Michel