RE: Theists: what does your god want for you?
May 6, 2013 at 10:52 am
(This post was last modified: May 6, 2013 at 10:57 am by The Reality Salesman01.)
(April 9, 2013 at 4:26 pm)jstrodel Wrote: Why is the only other explanation an experiment? Put that in formal logic. You don't have any argument. How do you know there is no other explanation. What if suffering was useful to God or permitted people to have free will? What if God made people intentionally frail so they would not challenge God's power in some other way?
Put in formal logic exactly how it follows from God's omniscience that God is required to give people a world without pain or suffering. Why should God even accept the categories of temporary human suffering as having any significant value?
I would be willing to entertain this. But, first, I think you'll need to outline God's limits once again. Does God Himself have free-will? That is, does God have the ability to act an a manner contrary to his nature? Please defend one position clearly and concisely.
(April 11, 2013 at 12:45 pm)ChadWooters Wrote:(April 9, 2013 at 7:02 pm)Ryantology Wrote: 1. God knows everything and can do anything and is in total control of the entire universe and everything in it.From the perspective of process theology, none of your premises are valid.
2. Everything God does, he does with complete understanding of the consequences.
3. Everything which happens is a result of God's desires and efforts.
4. Every consequence, of everything (e.g. suffering, pain, rape, torture), is specifically what God expressly desires to happen.
Premise 1) God is not in total control of everything. God gives sentient beings have freewill, which by definition excludes the God's influence.
Premise 2) The future does not yet exist. You cannot have full knoweledge about something that does not exist if that change of state includes indeterminate freewill choices.
Premise 3) Everything that happens is the combined effort of God's choices and all those made by sentient beings.
Therefore, Conclusion 4 is predicated on no true statements.
To be fair, your argument successfully refutes both Calvinism and Universalism.
So then God's abilities are inherently limited? God cannot act in a manner contrary to his nature? Correct?
