Are all atheists this ill-informed about religion?

[Redbeard The Pink]

---

Again, this ignores the fact that Gaud doesn't just know what will happen, he's also responsible for the existence of all the agents that execute those happenings and is therefore the only being with the power to prevent or change anything those agents might do (by choosing not to create something, for example).


Again, I go to the robot example. If I create a robot and it glitches out and kills a bunch of people, but there was no way for me to know it would do that, then I wouldn't necessarily be responsible for anything the robot does.


If, however, I know the robot can or will eventually glitch out and do this (even if it wasn't expressly programmed to), and I still build the robot and change nothing about its programming, I become directly and personally responsible if that glitch activates and people die.


So either Gaud created the Universe with free will and can therefore be surprised by it and is therefore not omniscient, or all of space-time is the inevitable result of Gaud's singular action of creating the Universe with exact knowledge of how it would unfold, meaning that at best he is personally responsible for all actions, and at worst all actions are really only one action (Gaud's), and we are mere results of that action with no agency of our own.

---

---

Just to note, your reply here, doesn't really have to do with mine that was cited, as they are different topics.  My comment was on the question of if knowledge precludes free will.  I do not believe that it does.  I normally resist a change in topic, until one issue has been discussed, but this is at least the second time with me, that you have diverted to this topic, so I would like to address it. 

One thing, that I think is often overlooked when making such comparisons, is position.  This is not meant to be a free pass, but only to point out, that when making comparisons, that if any person did this, it would be wrong, are some what inaccurate.  For instance, I am not free to detain someone in the same way that a judge or an officer of the law are able.  Similarly a government can decide that any suffering incurred in war is for the greater good, however similar circumstances for an individual claiming the greater good as reason are not acceptable. 

This article http://www.str.org/articles/augustine-on...jZv9zZdESk describes a number of objections, to the question if a good all knowing God, could allow evil.  It discusses that evil is not a thing, but a lack of good.  Similar to darkness being a lack of light.  It also discusses a number of virtues, which would not be present, if evil was not possible.  Similarly it encompasses a larger view of the overall picture where allowing evil or suffering may be a greater good, even if in the specific we cannot see it or understand it.  That the struggle produces a character which cannot be achieved if there was no choice or free will.  That temporary suffering is allowed in regards to a greater eternal good.

As said before, this is a difficult subject, especially if we or a loved one is suffering at the moment.  Understanding is not going to help at this time, and I think that scripture teaches us that this is not a time to provide reason, but for compassion, and to grieve with the person.  I think that there are a few issues with your robot analogy.  One robots do not have free will, and it is unclear whether humans could even create a morally responsible robot.  Second is position and knowledge.  We do not have the authority or the knowledge to make such a call;  even if it is believed, that a greater good could come from it overall. 

It is not an easy topic, and I don't expect those who do not know God, or are seeking opportunity to present a negative view of God to be convinced.    That is to say, that the result of this philosophy is going to be largely dependent on your previous view of God.  I do think that it however shows that a reasonable defense can be made in regards to the problem of evil, and the presence of suffering does not necessarily negate God's omnipotence, omniscience, or his benevolence.  From the article "God made a world in which true moral decision-making and development of virtues is possible in humans, manifest by persons whose character is formed through growth and struggle."

---

As I've stated elsewhere, perfect knowledge alone wouldn't necessarily preclude responsibility or free will, but an all-powerful creator with perfect knowledge would preclude responsibility at best and free will at worst. You're insisting on focusing on the knowledge problem so you can then sweep the other problem under the carpet later. If you're going to discuss your deity's traits and one trait conflicts with another, you don't get to isolate the traits in discussion so the contradictions are off-limits.


Evil is not a thing, but good is not a thing either. Both of those words describe nebulous, abstract concepts that have been invented by humans to categorize actions and experiences. There is no magical force of good in the Universe, just as there is no magical force of evil in the Universe. One could just as easily flip the statement and say that good is not a thing, it is only the absence of evil, and the assertion would still contain an equal measure of inanity.


Furthermore, evil is absolutely a thing in your religion because sin is a thing in your religion. If your Gaud created the entire Universe, and the Universe contains suffering and sin, it can only mean one of two things: either your Gaud wanted the Universe to contain suffering and sin, or he was unable to stop it from developing suffering and sin and those things developed anyway against his wishes.


If your Gaud were omniscient and omnipotent, he could have foreseen that the system he was about to create would clusterfuck his plans and wishes so badly and then changed the design and created a different system that didn't contain those problems. If he's all-powerful and all-knowing, then the system could only contain suffering and sin because he did not wish to prevent or remove those things, ergo he wanted his system to contain those things, ergo he knowingly inflicted suffering and sin on an entire Universe merely by creating it with his intended design. This means he CANNOT be defined as all-good or incapable of evil, considering that he is personally responsible for all evil by virtue of the fact that he did not prevent or exclude it from his design.


If your Gaud is all-good and incapable of evil, then he wouldn't be able to be responsible for evil, meaning that he could not knowingly create a system where the inhabitants would suffer so much evil. If he created a system and it turned out to contain evil anyway, he could only be excused of responsibility if he either didn't foresee it or didn't have the power to create it any other way, belying either his omnipotence, his omniscience, or both.