How can God be omniscently all-knowing if we have free will? If we can be free to make our own choices, and these are not pre-determined in any way, then God cannot know what we will do before we do it. So doesn’t this mean that God is not all-knowing? How can God be omniscent if he doesnt know what we will do? And if God doesn’t know everything, doesn’t this mean that God is imperfect?
And if he does know what we will do, doesnt this mean that we do not really have free will? But if we don’t have the free will to make our own choices, how can we be eternally judged for those choices? And if God knows what we will do before we do it, then it is pre-determined what we will do before we do it - so therefore we are not “free” to “choose”, because no matter what happens we will end up doing exactly what we will do, there is no other option. Thus, doesnt the knowledge of God’s absolute omniscience (assuming he knows what we will do) mean we have to resign ourselves to the realization that we can never deviate from doing what we were always going to do? Isn’t this the antithesis of “free will”?
And even if God “knows” what we will do, but we are still somehow “free” to choose that thing we do, doesn’t this mean that God sanctions everything we do? If God knows what we will do in advance, why bother letting us live our lives at all, why not just judge us before we are even born, because it is inevitable that God knows even at that point whether or not we will be good or bad, go to heaven or hell. What is the purpose in playing out a tragic comedy of humanity if God already knows with certainty what we will do, which of us will go to heaven and which will not? Why not spare all the human suffering and pain of life and death and just judge us all before it even happens, since (whether or not we have “free will”) he already knows the outcome of everything that will ever happen? Doesn’t the fact that God knows this ultimate outcome for everything but still lets the suffering and horrible pain of so many innocent people continue mean that God has no concern for our suffering and pain? He could end it with no change in the ultimate consequences or outcome, so why doesn’t he?
Why are you so hung up on citations? I am interested here in common Christian belief, whether or not it can be clearly traced to some such passage here or there in any old text.
If you think that Christians do not believe their God to be all-knowing and omniscent, then every Christian person I know or have known would disagree with you.
Why are you so interested in the ‘common’ Christian beliefs?
What is it you find so fascinating about what is common and all around you?
If you’re truly interested in Christianity, in what Christ was really about, might I suggest taking a crack at Kierkegaard?
Christianity is profoundly difficult - incredibly so.
I think we can at least agree that, given the fact that Jesus is counted among the most influential figures in human history, he was indeed an extraordinary human being.
Perhaps the ‘common’ haven’t a clue about their lord and savior, so why bother with them?
Dig a little deeper, my friend. You may find there’s more to this guy.
If you are after a doctrine, then you would have to specify which Christian form we are to wrestle with as the answers are determined by which doctrinal perspective one uses.
A Calvinist answer will be markedly different from a Ladder-Day Saint perspective, than a Non-denominational perspective, than a Quaker perspective.
Without such, I can only ask for a Biblical reference.
If you would rather surpass the Biblical, then we need a doctrine to examine.
No, you are merely avoiding the question I asked here.
It is a more than fair assumption that a common Christian belief is in the omniscent, all-knowing nature of God. I am writing my OP here with the assumption that we examine this segment of the Christian populace - so you can restrict the analyses here to that segment who hold such a belief about God. By no means do I think it is unjustified to examine this God belief, because the Christians that I know, and the major denominations that I have been exposed to, do hold this belief about God, that he is omniscently all-knowing, that nothing happens or will happen which he is not unaware of.
Why, is there some reason I ought not be interested in them?
For one thing, most people I know in life hold these beliefs. A significant fraction of the populace in America professes to some Christian belief, and the major denominations hold beliefs more or less aligned with what I have outlined in my questions in this forum.
It is always interesting to examine the beliefs and assumptions of those around you, and the more common these are, the more interesting it becomes, from a psychological and philosophical perspective.
If you are not interested in these sorts of questions, if you have no general intellectual curiousity then I have to ask, why are you here on a philosophy website?
I have read much of Kierkegaard. In fact he uses Christianity in a similar way that Nietzsche uses the Greek myths, that is, to provide a context for his philosophy. Kierkegaard, on a level below the absolutely superficial, is far deeper and more expansive than mere Christianity can capture, just like when Nietzsche writes about Dionysus or Apollo we cannot content ourselves to merely reading up on these Greek religious myths in order to understand what Nietzsche is saying, how he is using these myths.
If you mean it is full of contradictions and unanswerable problems, like the many I have outlined here, then yes I agree.
I always looked at god outside the frameworks of time as we know it. So before creation, after and forever more was simply a piece of paper laid out horizontally so to speak. And on that paper are all the actions and thoughts ever taken by any individual who ever existed. So by looking at that piece of paper god knows everything about everyone because it’s all already happened in his eyes. Sort of like watching a rerun. Just because you’ve seen the show and know what’s going to happen doesn’t mean you now have influence over what’s going to happen.
Now you get to the bigger and better questions of ‘if he knew all this was going to happen then why did he bother creating?’ or what kind of loving god sits around and allows freewill to happen at the expense of such immense suffering?’ … so on and so forth. To which the answer is obvious. There is no god and religion is simply a psychological tool used by our species to add meaning to our lives, justify existence and overcome the fear of death.
Yes good observations, but I think there is still a problem with the idea that we can be both free to act and choose for ourselves combined with the notion that “its already been done” in the manner that you describe it all being layed out for God to see on a horizontal piece of paper. If God sees literally what we “do” but we from our perspective have not done it yet, this seems to indicate that the “choice” we have in the act is nothing more than an illusion, because we will and must do whatever is written on that paper.
Yes and no. It’s a weird thing and even weirder to try and explain but somehow it all makes sense in my mind. You’re still hung up on the concept of time.
I understand what you’re saying, because if you look at it from one end then everything is written in stone and there is nothing you can do to change anything, therefore no free will. But from the other end it’s our choice. It’s the whole thing of hind sight being 20/20. Everything seems obvious when you know the answer. It’s like the trivia questions that you don’t know the answer to but when the answer is given you go “Oohhh yeah! I knew that!” But did you? Either you knew the answer or you didn’t. From one perspective you never knew, from the other you always did. Nothing changed but the passing of time, there was no outside force influencing the situation in anyway.
It’s weird to wrap around because time is such a core part of our thinking. It’s fun to toss around in the old noggin’ though.
Yes I am not entirely ruling out the possibility that God might “know” what we will “freely choose to do”, but as it stands I can see little rational reason for believing in this, other than almost completely warping the concept of choice and/or determination beyond all recognition. But even so, if I grant your idea here, it still is a far cry from a rational justification unless it can be more properly explained, and even so no Christians that I know of have formulated the contradiction in this way.
I would be interested to see this idea laid out in completeness, rationally speaking - it seems more than a problem of our concept of time, because time in itself is not the structure of the contradiction, the structure is deductive and based on the definitions of “free choice/will” and “determination”, which seem antithetically opposed no matter how much you want to bend time or place God above human subjectivity.
Well “logically” speaking it’s the only way they can explain it to make sense, becuase it doesn’t make sense. God knows everything and is bound by nothing so it works and that proves it. It’s pretty sweet really. No explanation is required because whatever the problem is you can just say that god is beyond it so it’s not a problem.
How I’ve laid it out earlier is the closest I’ve come to actually getting it to make any sense to me, but then it just leads into the next set (and messier imo) of questions about why creation even happened in the first place, why stand idly by, and so on.
Oh I am very interested in these sorts of questions, driven to them as a matter of fact, but I seem to be more drawn to the more exceptional cases, I guess. That is to say, I feel some (Kierkegaard, Dostoyevsky, etc.) have a broader, deeper, and further reaching grasp of truly religious ideas (including those of Christianity) than are held by the common man.
Perhaps my arrogance speaks here, but I find the common man (indeed the common Christian) to be shallow, almost transparent to me. Their beliefs and convictions, and their reasons for holding them rarely surprise me, and so rarely keep my interest - know what I mean?
That’s great you’ve dabbled in K, and I even like the (albeit somewhat misguided) comparison you drew with respect to Nietzsche, but I have to imagine you missed something along the way, particularly with respect to K. I mean, he was nothing at all if he wasn’t religious in the most profound sense of that term. But of course, ‘religious’ in his context means something worlds apart from what is commonly understood as religious (the common ‘religious’ man) - you may recall K’s scathing criticisms of false pieties and vain religiousness?
Kierkegaard’s religiousness is grounded exclusively in the individual and the individual’s relationship with his maker.
I might suggest going back and reading K’s more overtly religious writings - Purity of Heart, Edifying/Upbuilding Discourses, and also Fear and Trembling, Concept of Anxiety, Works of Love, etc.
No offense, but you may have missed a thing or two - or else, alas, ‘for what one lacks access to from experience, one will have no ear.’
You outline everyman’s understanding, so of course it makes no sense.
I’m asking you to consider what Kierkegaard understood about Christ, or whatever it was which convinced Wittgenstein of the profound veracity of his wisdom.
You are aware that Wittgenstein was an aspiring Christian, right? (note the word aspiring, for that is key) You think it was everyman’s understanding of Christ and Christianity that he found so compelling, or was it possibly something deeper?
You really think Hitler is a valid comparison?
Buddha? sure. Lao Tzu? sure. Plato? Sure.
Hitler? Hmm, I dunno.
I dunno - if you’re truly interested, if it is truth you seek, and not merely vindication of your current anti-religious convictions and prejudices, then I’m confident you’ll find there’s more to Jesus Christ (as an individual human being) than you’ve found thus far.
Dig a little deeper, find out why, or how on earth a man as brilliant and discerning as Wittgenstein could become so convinced of something which, on the surface, seems utterly absurd.
There is no answer outside of doctrinal justification for what is a doctrinal extrapolation in the first place.
But more valuable is that you would come here and pose the questions about all Christians in charge of questions that really should be asked to Christians that you have concern with; not to here, where we are a mixing pot of religious perspectives.
I do not mean you cannot ask, but rather that it’s a waist.
We are not all of Christianity here; we are from several religious walks, to include none.
Now when you come in and ask, I can approach the question by simply agreeing that Christianity is contrary to logic with such concept, but that really doesn’t help you at all with anything interesting.
It’s obvious that such a God description is quite a bit of a stretch that requires an explanation from the various congregations to the inquiring minds doctrinally so as to smooth over the seeming gap.
Most congregations have such a justification; it tends to ride on specific interpretations of given sections of the Bible, and in some cases, specific translations of the Bible (e.g. some groups only accept the KJV translation).
However, as you continue to see in the threads you have opened, I feel this is a waist of your time here on this site.
I would rather think you are a curious mind than an antagonist mind.
If you are a curious mind, then I can simply point out the historical movement of where the concepts are rooted, where they lead off to, and you can go off and hopefully find something of interest to your curious mind regarding the history of the Christian church as a growing system over time that has evolved into the adapted format that it is today…and is even now changing from.
So when I say this next part, don’t take this as a side-step of some Christian sympathizer, because I don’t hold reserved consideration for Christianity as a set of related doctrines of various types.
Instead, I simply think the following is worth more of your time than pointing out that fast-food religion is failing at making cohesive agreement with it’s own doctrinal holdings.
God, isn’t ever listed in the biblical texts as being all-knowing and omniscient.
That is a construct after the fact and not what was written down in ancient Hebrew texts, in fact, many Jewish faith followers today still hold to this same perspective.
The words that are used are words that mean that something is beyond the perspective view of yourself; beyond the vanishing point; over the horizon.
God’s knowledge is said to be this in the texts; in measure, far beyond that which man can even see at even a horizon of scope.
God is also explained to reside high in the sky; that his domain is from that vantage; a vantage that man can not climb up to.
Man can only stand at the top of the highest mountains (at the time) and see amazing stretches of all that is around.
However, beyond this even, God is listed as being further in height than this; able to see even more in scope than even this.
This is the concept that was originally outlined; that God is able to see more than man can at his best, and is aware of more than man at his best.
The original was always in comparison to man…of course it is; what else would God be compared against by the first men to write about this God?
What else should they compare God to?
You need a scope to translate this God to people; the scope is the comparison of what every man can relate to (what they can see from the tallest point they have ever seen, and everything the wisest men know) against an assertion that God holds even beyond these marks.
Further, the sky bit also comes along with the notice that all that is within God’s sight (from his high vantage) is within his authority.
This means that, unlike men (common of the time) who divide authority by what is seen from the highest point (all that ruler can see is their domain - several times noted as such in the texts), God’s authority encompasses even farther than man can even see of the land, and is determined from a vantage much higher than man can stand upon and witness.
This is the origin of the “all-knowing” and “omniscient” God.
All of the later concepts came with doctrinal cross-examinations and allegations where people saw problems that they felt needed to be reconciled in some way, shape, or form, and in turn their justifications were treated the same, and again, and again, etc…, until you reach today.
Stumps, I made it clear that I am interested in examining Christian belief, what I called the “common” or most general Christian belief. Yes we can argue a bit about what that constitutes, that is fine - but I do not understand why you insist that having such a discussion is a waste of time. Most people I know are Christians. It is the most common religious belief in America, where I live. Most Christians I know profess these common elements in their beliefs that I have outlined here. In addition I clarified my position that I am, in general, referring to Catholicism, Lutheranism and Evangelical denominations, insofar as these belief-sets overlap with each other. I consider this the “common” Christian belief because it appears to be the most wide-spread and most representative of modern Christianity as a whole. Yes there are outiers and exceptions, I get that. But I not concerned with identifying every little branch-off sect in the religion, what I concern myself with here is the common generally-accepted notions of Christian belief.
So in all honesty, I am confused why you cannot understand this. You moderate the religion forum and yet you do not understand why someone would be interested in examining the religious beliefs of most of the people around him and in his country? You cannot understand that someone would like to examine those beliefs as they are now, with little regard to the historical context of how they got that way? I am interested in the history of religion, but I also realize that religious belief constantly evolves, and given enough time it will branch out, multiply and divide itself, and change into new forms which might be almost indistinguishable from those forms which gave birth to it in antiquity. But here I do not care about that, it is a separate issue - what I have made more than clear is that I am concerned with analyzing the common, modern, generally-accepted “Christian beliefs” that are held by a large majority of those who identify themselves as Christians. Whether you think that their beliefs are aligned properly with the antiquated original texts or not is irrelevant, they have religious beliefs regardless, modern Christianity is what it is regardless of how close or far away it might be from what constituted Christianity two thousand years ago.
So like I said, I am confused why none of this makes any sense to you, why you consider it a waste of time. If all there is to this forum here is a place for historians to trace the etymological roots of certain religions words, then it is clear I have misjudged the intent of this religion forum.
You do not seem to share this belief, so why try to reconcile what you have already decided is irreconcilable?
Why not instead spend time looking at the other variations to the same question this belief collective (broadly speaking) is trying to answer: What is God, and what is our relation to this God?
If you don’t like the answer someone gives you, for instance, suggesting Omniscience and Free Will at the same time as Eternal Damnation, then why not look for where this comes from and learn something about the history of your own raised religion?
Why not look around to see what other answers are instead of just picking the easiest target there is on the planet?
American Christianity, as a whole, is far more diluted in most forms (even Catholic) than elsewhere in the world.
This is largely consequent of the American social network of life; speed and efficiency of the return on investment.
It’s incredibly easy, especially if the examination is of Protestantism sects, to tear down the doctrinal concepts when one sits outside of it applying non-doctrinal logic; cake-walk; child’s play.
It takes no great effort to point out that a Big Mac every day is unhealthy.
So like I said, what do you gain from this?
If you really wanted true answers to reconcile the issues, you would ask the congregations of interest and carry on a dialogue with the respective elders and leaders of each sect and/or congregation you are in question of.
However, as I said, you are asking here.
So…what am I to say here?
Yes, Christianity is a pile of crap?
Is this all you are after?
A simple pat on the back for realizing there are doctrinal contradictions within a variety of sects and congregations of Christianity, each unique from the other?
Great…now what do you want to do about that?
It’s not that I see no reason for examining the religious constructs, it’s that you haven’t shown any interest in what to do regarding such on your own virtue outside of just pointing out that there is a lacking.
Around here, you’ll quickly note this is not a new concept…as other’s have pointed out; most of your posts can be found under the same name as Mutcer only a few pages back from the main page (I actually had to make sure you weren’t a clone; that’s how close your questions are).
So, go ahead and pile into Christianity all you like.
I would only tell you that it’s a waist of time unless you actually have interest in pulling from it something worth-while to your own beliefs regarding life and spirituality.
Otherwise, it’s just tearing bark off of a tree and burning it for no reason at all.
And lastly, if you really are interested in the cultural aspect of a common religion around you, then why not inspect the sociological psychology of why given perspectives are popular among the masses at this time, as opposed to others?
This would suit your interest better than simply asking how doctrinal conflicts make logical sense when blatantly outside of doctrinal logic; they don’t.
You do not understand the purpose of asking rhetorical questions, in order to further expose and illuminate the flaw inherent in an idea?
That is beyond the scope of my intention with these specific posts. Of course that is a highly interesting question, but there is no reason I cannot explore these other common dogmatic concepts of modern-day religion in addition to asking these “deeper” questions.
I might do that, or I might not, that would be up to me, if I considered it beneficial in some way. Mostly, I dont really care what the origins of these beliefs are, other than a sort of mild intellectual curiousity.
Yes it is an easy target, but most people hold some sort of belief like the ones I am identifying here, so it is more than relevant to try and show the error inherent in that belief itself, because it is a fair bet that most of these religious people who hold these beliefs have not seriously asked themselves these questions.
No, but if most people do not realise this fact, then there is benefit in mentioning it, in getting them to think about it.
It is amusing, I enjoy exposing the flaws in these commonly accepted beliefs. I am generally intellectually curious and I derive enjoyment from exposing the flaws and irrationalities in other’s beliefs. And in addition to that, if I can get someone to honestly begin to question their religious assumptions, then all the better.
No, I am asking about the specific beliefs that I identify. I am not here concerned with Christianity as a whole, only with these specific beliefs.
Many people do not realise this fact, so there is benefit in mentioning it, in exposing these errors. And as I say, it amuses me to do so. I need no pat on the back from you, but thanks for offering.
How is this any sort of requirement for general philosophical discussion or rational debate about an idea?
I didnt realise that I had to create a plan of action and “what to do about it” in order to carry on a general philosophical discussion, or question commonly accepted ideas in society.
Maybe you can link me to where this is a requirement of posting in this forum…?
I do not know who that is, and I can honestly say I have never read a post of his. I am glad you realise that I am not him.
Yes I plan to.
Dont worry, you can leave me to determine my own reasons and motives and interests for myself, but thank you for your sincere concern on my behalf.
I think about these sorts of things all the time. But that doesnt mean it is the only way to critically analyze these ideas.
Once again, you can leave me to determine my interests and how best to satisfy them for myself, but thanks again for the concern.
You are in the furthest of places you could possibly be for your interest.
Firstly, this forum is welcome to all and accepting to all faiths and ridicules none; this is even in the rules at the top of the forum.
Secondly, this is not a Christian heavy area; their are Christians here, but there are none among here ignorant.
There are Buddhists, Confucianists, Mormons, Christians, Atheists, New Ager’s, Spiritualists, Deists, Agnostics, Antitheists, and more.
This is not the place for you to stroke your jolly’s at the expense of attempting to show how others folly.
Doing so will quickly return the favor without any effort on any moderating behalf; the general fair at ILP simply seems to naturally distaste such action.
Within the realm of my moderation, I can say that you are riding dangerously close in this declaration to having several threads shut down since your only interest is to point out folly for your own enjoyment; belittlement; poking fun at other’s beliefs.
This action is strictly against the forum rules.
You will have to persuade me that I am mistaken in this interpretation.
If you cannot, then I will have no choice but to close all of your threads currently open and pack them away for by your own words so far, they only exist so you can enjoy belittling other people’s (largely of which are not present at ILP) religious beliefs.
But mostly, I can simply tell you this:
You are completely waisting your time at ILP if you wish to poke fun of people to make yourself feel better; to point out flaws of beliefs largely not held here by anyone so to feel better.
I am not belittling or being condescending, I am rationally examining the logical basis for these commonly held beliefs. If that is not allowed, then philosophy itself becomes impossible.
I cannot believe my sincere questions here are being treated so hostily by you, as if I were some troll. I am not. I am asking serious questions about the rational basis of these common ideas. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. If anyone is being condescending and belittling here, it is you.
I am treating these ideas here objectively, as logical problems, based on their rational structures and assumptions. I am trying to critically examine the idea itself, for its own sake. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that. I am not attacking anyone’s personal belief or being condescending, I am engaging in intellectual debate regarding the content of the idea itself. Objective, logical critical analysis is the basis of all philosophy, I cannot even begin to understand what your problem is here.
An overview of my posts here shows that I am clearly interested in a rational and objective examination of these ideas based on their own logical structure and merit, without regard to the history or biblical accuracy of the belief, and without regard to anyone’s personal convictions or feelings. I can only imagine that you are retaliating against me because you are upset that someone else has been trolling this forum - but it is not me, and I do not appreciate being treated as a troll for merely bringing up sincere and legitimate rational questions about commonly accepted and well-known ideas.