Solved Theodicy?

[Minimalist]

This would be my first post here.

Don't worry about that.  Plenty of others have provided the same gibbersih.

[Mudhammam]

Yeah, but if we have real free will, he doesn't know the outcome of our actions in advance. This is the contradiction, and theists often want to have it both ways. If God isn't able to know the future, which is a very reasonable proposition, he can indeed receive less of the blame. It's when he's given every opportunity and every power that there is literally no excuse for him. A less-than-all-powerful God can be argued to be doing its best.

The omniscience is supposed to be predicated on the fact that the agent has made a free choice. Is that contradictory? Perhaps. It certainly seems to be a nonsensical instance of backwards causality, placing God's attributes in the uncomfortable position of being contingent on creation, on a process of events that have not yet actually come to pass: the event that hasn't occurred in time causes God to have knowledge of actual choices, or, prior to the actualization of temporal events, which God sees from all temporal vantage points, knowledge of the choices were known to him as mere logical possibilities. It seems that the theist wants to say that God did not know everything (that S would choose x) until he actualized sequences in time, and therein gained omniscient knowledge of all S chooses/will choose... Although the cause of this newfound power is unknown. It is, at the very least, awkward.

[theologian]

I find these analogies very flawed. To begin with, as is usual, God is being compared to a human and as such expected to be allowed the excuse of a human's lack of capabilities.

Scientists attempt to predict the weather. They do not know what the weather will be. God does know. And he did indeed cause it all, because he made all this, knowing what would happen. I don't know how he could be any more responsible. The constant efforts people make to try and relieve god's responsibility for his own creation seem to reveal the obvious gap between what one would expect and what one sees. Is this his plan, or not? He made it and he knows its future. Scientists neither made the weather, nor actually know its future. The anology doesn't work.

Please correct me if I have mistakenly understood your reason why my analogy doesn't hold. According to you, my analogy is incorrect, for scientist are very different from God, as the former didn't made the weather and couldn't stop it, while God did made the weather (as He is the creator) and that He can stop it.

To be honest, I can't understand why my analogy is incorrect with that reason. Because, analogies are arguments which shows what are partially the same, and what are partially different, and with focusing on what's the same and ignoring what's different, one can make a sound conclusion. So, analogy can show differences. But, your reason why my analogy is incorrect is that there are differences with God and the scientist. Therefore, it seems to me that your reason for saying that my analogy is wrong.

Secondly, you're suggesting God has some sort of restrictions and that if we understood them, suffering would make sense. If there are restrictions, either he made them himself, or they were imposed on him. In the first case he's still responsible. In the second he's not all powerful. Could he achieve whatever bizarre plan he wanted, with all of the positive outcomes, without the suffering? If yes, he's choosing the suffering. If no, he's not all powerful.

What I have understood from your second point are the following: God must be restricted so that we can understand suffering. He is restricted by being either causing suffering or He was made to be restricted. By that, He is either responsible or not all powerful.

First, I'm not suggesting in any way here that God has restrictions. For, what I have shown are the restriction of our perspective.

Second, to answer your dilemma, which shows whether God is either responsible or all powerful, I'm sorry, but that is a false dilemma. For, neither God is responsible nor He is truly all powerful. As, freewill is real and He is the Creator. But, if an either/or proposition doesn't have at least one true content, then the dilemma which has the either/or proposition will be a false dilemma. But, that is the case here. So, the dilemma you've shown is false.

 

You can't have it both ways, I'm afraid.

Agree. And, He can also have it neither ways.

What does he need with a plan, or outcomes? He can do anything, instantly. He has no barriers or adversaries.

Agree. Yet, we do have barriers and adversaries and He respects our nature, as it is fitting for God to be a God of order.

The difference is that we are not claimed to be all-powerful. Nobody EXPECTS the weatherman to stop the rain.

Yet, the all analogies portray partially the same and partially different. Hence, no analogy will fail just because there are difference. Otherwise, all argument from analogy would be wrong.

If what is good to God is not good to man-- i.e. if it involves suffering of children, untimely illness and death, and so on, then why should we give a shit whether he has a plan, or whether he exists at all?

First, it is not true that sufferings of every kind is good to God while not being good to man. For, sufferings are not part of His original plan. Yet, He allowed suffering to happen to make us understand His power and so we can become more than we are: from being son of man into being sons and daughters of God. For in suffering, we able to be more loving. In suffering, we can give ourselves to those who are suffering in a way one cannot give to those who doesn't suffer.

[Minimalist]

According to you, my analogy is incorrect, for scientist are very different from God, as the former didn't made the weather and couldn't stop it, while God did made the weather (as He is the creator) and that He can stop it.

Um, scientists exist... every time there is a hurricane they are out there explaining it and reporting on it whereas your alleged god remains invisible.  Provide evidence that your god exists.

And he never seems to stop shit.

[robvalue]

Theologian: Okay, if you say God isn't all powerful, then you are able to excuse some of god's behaviour. It's a far superior position in my opinion. It's still discussing the imaginary as far as evidence goes, but at least it's consistent.

I think I explained in detail why the analogy isn't valid, because it doesn't even show what you said it shows. You said scientists know what the weather will do. They do not. They predict it. They be right, they may not.

If God knows what I'm going to do before I do it, can I choose do anything else? If in fact you're saying he doesn't know what I'll do, then there is no contradiction.

[theologian]

Theologian: Okay, if you say God isn't all powerful, then you are able to excuse some of god's behaviour. It's a far superior position in my opinion. It's still discussing the imaginary as far as evidence goes, but at least it's consistent.

I think I explained in detail why the analogy isn't valid, because it doesn't even show what you said it shows. You said scientists know what the weather will do. They do not. They predict it. They be right, they may not.

If God knows what I'm going to do before I do it, can I choose do anything else? If in fact you're saying he doesn't know what I'll do, then there is no contradiction.

Where did I say that God isn't powerful? I hold that He is Omnipotent, as He is Being Himself. If other realities has power, then Reality Himself must have Infinite Power.

All prediction doesn't have anything to do with knowledge. But, the scientist forecasting the weather uses the knowledge of heavenly bodies and the knowledge of cause and effect. Therefore, the scientist doing weather forecast doesn't just predict. Hence, it is not true that my analogy, according to you, is not valid, because scientist, even though in a far inferior way, knows what weather will happen and we know that they didn't cause the weather, just as God knows our thoughts and will and what we're going to do without hindering our freewill which is self-evident.

Now, to answer your question "if God knows what I'm going to do before I do it, can I choose do anything else", and my answer is of course you do able to choose anything else. For, there is no contradiction between freewill and God's omniscience in your case. If I can know your thoughts and will, then I can know what you're going to do before you do it. If you try to change your mind, then I can still know that you'll do something else. So, whatever you do, to proceed with your original plan or to do something else, I know it, granted that I can know your thoughts and will. But, God must know our thoughts and decisions. Hence, there's no contradiction between God's omniscience and our freewill.

[robvalue]

You think scientists don't predict the weather? You're saying they get it right all the time? Of course they attempt to predict it. That's the whole point of science. Totally accurate predictions (foreknowledge) would require total knowledge of reality. Even if your analogy holds, an analogy is not an argument. It's meant to demonstrate a point; a point you have not yet made. A better analogy would be that I have put a bunch of people in a room, knowing they are all going to starve to death no matter what they do. But I give them "free will" to try and get out, knowing they will fail, because it's inescapable. If I set events in motion, and I know what result will occur, and I allow that result to occur, I'm responsible. I don't know why you think God isn't responsible for his own plan. I guess it's because his plan is awful and involves giving AIDS to babies. On the one hand you say there's a reason this happens which we can't grasp, part of a great plan, but then you say he's not even responsible for it. Which is it?

I could leave the door open and say they are free to leave at any point. But then if they try to leave, I make them slip over or hit each other so that my prediction comes true. Which it must, because I know it.

So God knows what the final outcome of my actions will be, after taking into account whether he screws with me or not, or anyone else screws with me or not. Even if he knew that theoretically it would be something else but would be changed, he still knows the overall result. Beforehand. If he only knows afterwards, he knows nothing more than anyone else.

So I cannot end up doing anything except this result, in the end. Can I? If I can, then he doesn't know the end result. So basically, I'm free to try to alter this result, but I will fail. My life is still planned for me before I take my first breath. I cannot escape it. If I go axe murder a baby, it's not my fault because I couldn't have ever been able to do anything else no matter how hard I tried.

The only alternative here is that God chooses my action for me (by screwing with me) as I do it. Still not free will as I have no say in the matter. And God would still know the outcome, unless he didn't know what he was going to do. This is some serious mental gymnastics which still ends up making God look like an idiot playing with puppets, and he loses foreknowledge, unless he himself has no free will.

Does God know what he will do in advance? If no, he doesn't know everything. If yes, he has no free will.

[theologian]

You think scientists don't predict the weather? You're saying they get it right all the time? Of course they attempt to predict it. That's the whole point of science. Totally accurate predictions (foreknowledge) would require total knowledge of reality.

So God knows what the final outcome of my actions will be, after taking into account whether he screws with me or not, or anyone else screws with me or not. Even if he knew that theoretically it would be something else but would be changed, he still knows the overall result. Beforehand.

So I cannot end up doing anything escept this result, in the end. Can I? If I can, then he doesn't know the end result. So basically, I'm free to try to alter this result, but I will fail.

I'm not saying that the scientist get it right all the time due to some missing information. But, suppose scientist does have all the information, then he can know exactly what would be the weather without causing the weather, correct? The more it goes with God Whom indeed knows all information, as He is Omniscient. So, your objection that my analogy is wrong is in turn incorrect. For, part of what is partly different in my analogy of scientist and God is that God has perfect knowledge, while scientist do not, and what is partly the same in my analogy which is still correct per our exchange is that both the scientist knows the weather and God knows our actions while both doesn't cause the weather and our actions respectively, and every analogy has a necessary property of comparing two things which are both partly the same, partly different. Otherwise, it will not be an analogy.

Yes, God knows everything beforehand. A scientist who have gotten all the relevant information would know what will happen beforehand. But, again, both will NOT cause the end result. Again, if we will examine your reasoning, your hidden premise is that whoever knows is also the one who causes. But that hidden premise is not true. For, if I know that you are an atheist, does I caused your atheism? And if I know that you may be a believer in the future, does it cause your change of being a believer? No, right? So, concluding absurdity from God's omniscience and the reality of freewill is just concluding from a false hidden premise.

Now, your third point can be answered easily too. Your third point is that if you change your mind and therefore changing the end result, it follows that God doesn't know the new end result. Suppose you have two actions: A and B. Suppose too I know again your thoughts and decision. So, I know that you are going to do A now. Now, aside from knowing your thoughts and decision, I also know the effects of every cause. So, I know that if you do A, then I know that the result is C. If you do B, the result is D. Now, you try to change your mind from doing A and instead you now want to do B. Does it follow that I don't know that end result? Of course not! I have just said that I know that if A, then I know that it will be an end result of C, and if B, then D. But, God both knows our though and will and knows every consequence of His creation. So, this third point of yours doesn't prove the contradiction between God's omniscience and the reality of our freewill.

Let me try to guess your next objection. You may ask, what exactly be the end result? Is it either C or D? If I answer that God can't know that, then He is not really all-knowing. But, you'll say that it is impossible to know the exact end result given the changing of your thoughts and decision due to the reality of freewill. Hence, if freewill is true, then God will not know the exact end result.

However, that will not work. We need to take note that being all-knowing is to know what is all that is correct and therefore it is impossible for an all-knowing to know what is incorrect. After all, if we are incorrect of thinking something, then we really don't know it. Now, asking God what would be the exact end result which includes the exact result of what will be done by beings whom have freewill is to force God to commit mistake. But, God is all-knowing and therefore cannot commit mistake. Therefore, unable to know the exact result of what will be done by beings whom have freewill is not against omniscience. After all, God's revelation includes warning, for He knows the exact result based on what we are actually willing and doing. So, I think atheists got it all wrong here regarding the apparent contradiction between omniscience and the reality of freewill.

[robvalue]

Okay, so he doesn't know what I'll do before hand. There you go.

Most people won't admit that, and it looked like you were argueing that he did in fact know.

Free will and precognition are contradictory. But if you are dumping precognition, then that is fine.

[theologian]

[qoute=robvalue]
Okay, so he doesn't know what I'll do before hand. There you go.
[/quote]

I didn't say that that God doesn't know you'll do beforehand, for through reading of your mind and will which God can surely do, He can know what you'll do. Even if you change what you'll do, if I can read your thoughts, I can know what you're going to do too. But God can do it infinitely better. If I did really say that He don't what you'll do beforehand, is it against His omniscience? Yes or no, and why?

[qoute=robvalue]
Most people won't admit that, and it looked like you were argueing that he did in fact know.

Free will and precognition are contradictory. But if you are dumping precognition, then that is fine.
[/quote]

What's precognition?