RE: A 'proof' of God's existence - free will
May 5, 2020 at 12:10 am
(This post was last modified: May 5, 2020 at 12:13 am by Belacqua.)
Magilla,
I think that what you're arguing here would be a difficult challenge for Bible literalists and maybe the folks at the church down the street from you. But it doesn't address the God that theologians and philosophers have written about, from Plato and Aristotle, through Anselm, Pseudo-Dionysius, up to modern mystics like Boehme and Blake. Nor is the God that atheist philosophers like Derrida, Zizek, or Badiou discuss at all like the one you describe.
First, when theologians talk about God knowing things, this is not the same as when people know things. For me to know something, there have to be two things: me and the thing I know. If I know my friend's phone number, the phone number is separate from me.
God, however, is said to be infinite and to exclude nothing. It is existence itself, and nothing could be separate from it. Therefore God doesn't know things in the way that I do -- aware of something separate from itself.
For this long tradition, the term "omniscient," in regard to God, means that all knowledge is included in God. All knowable things are inseparable from God.
God is said to be unchanging and impassible. That is, it couldn't possibly change. Being complete and lacking nothing, any change would be a falling-away from completion and perfection.
Being complete, and lacking nothing, and never changing, it would be silly to say that God has hopes.
The God that you seem to be talking about, and that a lot of people here are busy not believing in, is like Zeus or Thor -- a big powerful guy. But that's not the God that Augustine or Aquinas believed in.
In regard to God, "omnipotent" doesn't mean "can do anything."
The theologians are clear that God can't go against its nature, can't do evil, can't make a four-sided triangle, and many other things.
"Omnipotent," in regard to God, means that he is complete actualization without potentiality. All potencies (potentialities) are realized in God, and nothing potential can be actualized in the material world without such a fully actualized cause.
It's strange to me that so few people who discuss theology on the Internet don't know this tradition, although it's the standard view of God held by people educated in the history of ideas.
I think that what you're arguing here would be a difficult challenge for Bible literalists and maybe the folks at the church down the street from you. But it doesn't address the God that theologians and philosophers have written about, from Plato and Aristotle, through Anselm, Pseudo-Dionysius, up to modern mystics like Boehme and Blake. Nor is the God that atheist philosophers like Derrida, Zizek, or Badiou discuss at all like the one you describe.
Quote:If a god is omniscient and knows all about the future, then that god knows all of what it will do, in that future.
First, when theologians talk about God knowing things, this is not the same as when people know things. For me to know something, there have to be two things: me and the thing I know. If I know my friend's phone number, the phone number is separate from me.
God, however, is said to be infinite and to exclude nothing. It is existence itself, and nothing could be separate from it. Therefore God doesn't know things in the way that I do -- aware of something separate from itself.
For this long tradition, the term "omniscient," in regard to God, means that all knowledge is included in God. All knowable things are inseparable from God.
Quote: So the god cannot change whatever it can see in that future, both for itself, and for all of existence
God is said to be unchanging and impassible. That is, it couldn't possibly change. Being complete and lacking nothing, any change would be a falling-away from completion and perfection.
Quote:So that god can have no hopes, because it knows exactly what will happen, and so, (unless it is quite an illogical god), it cannot for example hope for something 'X' to come to pass, when it knows with 100% certainty that it will not be 'X', but will be some other thing 'Y' instead.
Being complete, and lacking nothing, and never changing, it would be silly to say that God has hopes.
The God that you seem to be talking about, and that a lot of people here are busy not believing in, is like Zeus or Thor -- a big powerful guy. But that's not the God that Augustine or Aquinas believed in.
Quote:If that god does not have free will, but human beings do, then that god is not omnipotent, for we humans would have an ability, which it does not, (free will).
In regard to God, "omnipotent" doesn't mean "can do anything."
The theologians are clear that God can't go against its nature, can't do evil, can't make a four-sided triangle, and many other things.
"Omnipotent," in regard to God, means that he is complete actualization without potentiality. All potencies (potentialities) are realized in God, and nothing potential can be actualized in the material world without such a fully actualized cause.
It's strange to me that so few people who discuss theology on the Internet don't know this tradition, although it's the standard view of God held by people educated in the history of ideas.
