The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Discuss philosophical questions regarding theism (and atheism), and discuss religion as it relates to philosophy. This includes any philosophical discussions that happen to be about god, gods, or a 'higher power' or the belief of them. This also generally includes philosophical topics about organized or ritualistic mysticism or about organized, common or ritualistic beliefs in the existence of supernatural phenomenon.
User avatar
LuckyR
Moderator
Posts: 7935
Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by LuckyR »

RuleOnu wrote:I'm not trying to prove anything!

I'm making an argument using conditional propositions and inductive and deductive arguments.

Arguments and propositions you have not, or rather, cannot, similarly refute using the same philosophical methods.

I'm sorry, but philosphy is an acedemic discipline. Perfectly fine to have opinions, but, in philosphy there are rules and principles like the application of conditional propositions, inductive or deductive arguments, modal logic, syllogisms and valid conclusions based on those properties, whether they are right or wrong.

Rejection is not a refutation or argument.

Based on my arguments I stand by the only rational conclusions I offered to your questions as a result.
"If a "god" exists, given the maximal attributes and characteristics necessary for a "god" to be worthy of contemplation and worship, then the One True God actualized the world to share His perfect Love with Man He created in His image."
Sounds nice at first glance, but if you think about it critically, are humans really in an omnipotent/omniscient god's image if the relative intellect of a human to a god is similar of that between a human and an amoeba? I'm going with: no.

Or to put it differently, your proposition would make more sense if gods were at maximum an order of magnitude more powerful and intelligent than humans. Say human to canine level. After all humans domesticated canines and a few modern humans even prefer the company of canines to that of humans, ie they really care about the day-to-day activities of their canines.
"As usual... it depends."
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by -0+ »

Atreyu wrote:I don't believe that the original sin was an act of "free will". Adam and Eve merely succumbed to an outside force, metaphorically called 'the Serpent'. They didn't really decide or choose to "do" what they did. The act of the Serpent was to deceive Eve, to mesmerize her, hypnotize her, which IMO makes her unaccountable for what happened. Adam in turn was deceived by Eve, making him also unaccountable.
Where in Genesis does it suggest that any hypnotism was involved? Eve claims that the serpent deceived her but where was the deceit?

The serpent began by asking Eve if God had said she shall not eat from every tree of the garden. Eve paraphrased what God said earlier to Adam, that you may freely eat from every tree in the garden but you shall not eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, for in the day that you eat from it you shall surely die.

The serpent said to Eve: you shall not surely die, for God knows that in the day you eat thereof your eyes shall be opened, and you shall be like God knowing good and evil.

That's all the serpent is reported to have said. Where was the deceit?

Eve saw that the tree was good for food, and she ate fruit from the tree. She also gave some to Adam and he ate too. She is not reported to have said anything to Adam. In what way did she deceive Adam?

In the day that they ate the fruit their eyes were opened (like the serpent said would happen). They did not die (unlike what God said would happen).

God later acknowledged that the man had become like one of us knowing good and evil.

What did the serpent do other than ask a question and tell the truth?

Translations vary. They don't all refer to "in the day". Common belief that eating the fruit led to Adam's eventual death (hundreds of years later) and that the serpent deceived Eve is supported by some translations more than others, but this is at least questionable.

Here are some other points of interest ...

God commanded Adam not to eat from the tree of knowledge of good and evil before God created Eve. Therefore, the serpent's question is very pertinent. Did God really say she shall not eat from every (or any) tree in the garden? Adam may have passed on a variation of God said to him, but Genesis only reports that Adam was commanded not to eat from the tree. If Eve wasn't commanded not to eat from the tree then what did she do wrong?

There is a big difference between saying "you shall not surely die" and "you shall surely not die" (translations vary significantly in meaning here).

Adam's defence was that the woman whom God gave to be with him gave him the fruit, raising the question: what reason would Adam have to suspect that anyone or thing that God gave to him might lead him astray? Adam does not suggest that Eve said anything to him, but God punished Adam for listening to her.

Another defence they could have used is that they did not know good and evil before they ate the fruit so how could they have sinned?

In King James version, the serpent says "ye shall be as gods". Most other versions (including revised King James) say "God" rather than "gods". In most versions, God says the man has become like one of "us" in knowing good and evil. This suggests that God is talking to at least one (unidentified) other who also knows good and evil.

No commandments were reported regarding the tree of life. It seems they could have freely eaten from that tree but by chance they didn't. God only acts to prevent access to the tree of life after they have eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, as if there is something about the combination of this knowledge and living forever that needs to be prevented.
Renee wrote:The strong insistence on the existence of free will, and the logical impossibility of free will concurrent with the doctrine of an almighty god, nullifies the credibility of the scriptures. Because you can have one, or the other, but not both.
Free will may be incompatible with omniscience more than omnipotence.

If it is somehow known that option A will be chosen, that the probability that A will be chosen is 1 and the probability that any other option will be chosen is zero, then it seems there can be no genuine freedom to choose any other option.

If a being knows everything then it cannot have genuine free will either. It can't choose to do anything different from what it already knows it is going to do. It can only go through the motions. If God is all-knowing then God must go through the charade of saying to Adam that he shall not eat of the tree of knowledge of good and evil knowing full well that Adam will eat from that tree, and there is nothing God or any other being can do to stop this from happening without God already knowing about this. So an omniscient being is effectively impotent in some sense. Omniscience is totally uninteresting.

However it is possible for a being (who may or may not be all-powerful) to create a universe without knowing everything about this. This would be more interesting.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by -1- »

Knowledge is not experience. You may know ahead of time what you will experience, but knowledge does not involve actual smell, sight, taste, pleasure, happiness.

So someone, like a god, could know that next Tuesday s/he will have roast beef for dinner, but the experience on the actual day will trump the previous knowledge about the dinner happening. This may be one motivation to create and to enjoy one's creation of a world: knowing the pleasures does not cancel the joy of experiencing the pleasure. In fact, certain knowledge of imminent pleasure is more reassuring and psychologically producing more joy, than the mere possibility with a hint of uncertainty of some future joy.

The omniscient being has no hope. S/he needs not to depend on hope.

The omniscient being needs no beliefs.

The omniscient being has no use for math or for philosophy.

The omniscient being needs to be able to experience things.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by Fooloso4 »

-0+:
That's all the serpent is reported to have said. Where was the deceit?
It was an equivocation. The serpent was telling the truth about them not dying on the day they ate, but was being deceitful in not saying that because they ate on that day they would die. Had they not eaten they would have remained in the garden and eaten of the tree of life.
In what way did she deceive Adam?
The crime of seduction, aka being a woman. Whatever ‘knowledge’ means, it has something to do with sex. Adam blames God since God gave Eve to Adam.
Did God really say she shall not eat from every (or any) tree in the garden? Adam may have passed on a variation of God said to him, but Genesis only reports that Adam was commanded not to eat from the tree. If Eve wasn't commanded not to eat from the tree then what did she do wrong?
From God to Adam to Eve to the serpent the commandment has already been altered in two ways. First the tree in the midst of the garden is the tree of life not the tree of knowledge, and second, God said nothing to Adam about not touching it. Eve was aware of the prohibition, and despite her confusion ate of the tree she had been told she was not supposed to eat from.
Another defence they could have used is that they did not know good and evil before they ate the fruit so how could they have sinned?
One major problem is we do not know what knowledge of good and evil (or bad) means or if knowledge is necessary in order to obey the command not to eat of the tree. It may be that knowing good and evil has something to do with doing good and evil, that knowing is a kind of doing or producing. If so, there is a sense in which by eating they have already eaten, that is, they had already acted according to their own desires and/or evaluation of what is preferable to do.

As to knowledge as doing or producing: Adam knew Eve and began the genesis. They did not know how to make clothing. After being banished they had to make bread and make the ground produce. Cain ends up in a land where instruments of metal and cities are built.
God only acts to prevent access to the tree of life after they have eaten from the tree of knowledge of good and evil, as if there is something about the combination of this knowledge and living forever that needs to be prevented.
Right. They would no longer be like gods, they would have become immortal gods.
However it is possible for a being (who may or may not be all-powerful) to create a universe without knowing everything about this. This would be more interesting.
There clearly was a learning curve for the God of Genesis. What he had begun went so far off that he had to bring a flood to kill almost all living things. He then regretted doing that too. God’s exchange with Abraham about the city of Sodom and Gomorrah shows a god who takes moral instruction from a man.
User avatar
-1-
Posts: 878
Joined: December 1st, 2016, 2:23 am

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by -1- »

Somebody here should read the blasted passage. Is it the tree of life, or the tree of knowledge? Do they gain knowledge by eating from the tree of life, or do they gain mortality from eating from the tree of knowledge?

Furthermore: are females conniving, seductive creatures, while men are not? as one reader suggested. "The crime of seduction, aka being a woman."

Is knowledge limited to sex? Is sex all there is to knowledge? "Whatever ‘knowledge’ means, it has something to do with sex."

Who is blaming whom? Is there a blame mentioned in the pages of genesis? Is there a logical way to blame God for the "seductive" ways of a woman? Was this actually spelled out in the book, "Adam blames God since God gave Eve to Adam."

Too many versions, people mix up terms, people mix up MAJOR species of trees (tree knowledgebus Lynne, tree vidibus Lynne, etc.), nobody quotes the bible directly, but everyone says what they think is what the bible says. Maybe the tree was a cherry-tree, ready made for the bible-quoters favourite activity, cherry-picking.

I say we pick one of us, whoever draws the shortest stick, and that person has to read the original bible, and report back to us what actually is said in genesis. And we keep to that, as a factual record of what the bible says, once and for all, and promise not to make up tall tales about what the bible says, in the (correct but) unsaid assumption hitherto prevailing, that nobody else around here has read the bible either.
This search engine is powered by Hunger, Thirst, and a desperate need to Mate.
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by Fooloso4 »

-1-:
Somebody here should read the blasted passage. Is it the tree of life, or the tree of knowledge? Do they gain knowledge by eating from the tree of life, or do they gain mortality from eating from the tree of knowledge?
Two trees are mentioned - the tree of life and the tree of knowledge of good and bad. The tree of life is identified as the tree “in the midst” of the garden. Nothing else is said about it until God banishes them from the garden so they cannot eat of it and live forever. God tells Adam not to eat of the tree of knowledge and if he does he will surely die. Eve tells the serpent about this but gets things a bit mixed up (the tree in the midst) and embellishes (do not touch). The serpent tells her they will not die, but because the cannot eat of the tree of life they do die. They do not gain mortality, the loose immortality and gain knowledge from eating of the tree of knowledge. There is no single, agreed upon interpretation of what 'knowledge of the tree of good and bad means'.
Furthermore: are females conniving, seductive creatures, while men are not? as one reader suggested. "The crime of seduction, aka being a woman."
That reader would be me. I am interpreting the text, not giving my own views on women. The seductress is common trope in the Bible. There are parts of the world where women are required to be covered from head to toe so that they do not commit the crime of seduction. That is their view not mine. The role and place of women in the Hebrew Bible is a complex one, the story of Adam and Eve has more to say about this but it is off topic.
Is knowledge limited to sex? Is sex all there is to knowledge? "Whatever ‘knowledge’ means, it has something to do with sex."
My suggestion is that to know means, at least in part, to make or produce. It is not limited to sex but sex is explicitly identified - Adam knew Eve and children ensued. I also pointed to the connection with knowledge of how to make clothes, and to the association of Cain with the building of cities and metal instruments.
Was this actually spelled out in the book, "Adam blames God since God gave Eve to Adam."
This is what Adam says:

The man said, “The woman whom you gave to be with me, she gave me fruit of the tree, and I ate.” (3:12).

It is an interpretation I read and that I support. He blames both God and Eve - you gave her to me and she gave the fruit to me.
… nobody quotes the bible directly, but everyone says what they think is what the bible says.
I have presented this interpretation before on this forum with careful references, quotations, and discussion of terms. A few others have done the same. I decided not to do that this time because I thought it might be more distracting than helpful.
Maybe the tree was a cherry-tree, ready made for the bible-quoters favourite activity, cherry-picking.
Good one!
I say we pick one of us, whoever draws the shortest stick, and that person has to read the original bible, and report back to us what actually is said in genesis.
I have been doing this for many years. I have read Genesis and various commentaries on Genesis. I was serious enough about this that at one time I was able to read the text in Aramaic and Hebrew. I am not an expert but I am have more than a passing acquaintance with the text.
And we keep to that, as a factual record of what the bible says, once and for all …
I do not think there is a once and for all interpretation. I think the best we can do is read the text carefully and favor those interpretations that shed light on the whole and best connects the parts.
… and promise not to make up tall tales about what the bible says, in the (correct but) unsaid assumption hitherto prevailing, that nobody else around here has read the bible either.
I have had discussions here with others who have also read the Bible, or at least parts of it. I do not think it a good assumption that no one has read the Bible here.
Dark Matter
Posts: 1366
Joined: August 18th, 2016, 11:29 am
Favorite Philosopher: Paul Tillich

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by Dark Matter »

-1- wrote:Knowledge is not experience. You may know ahead of time what you will experience, but knowledge does not involve actual smell, sight, taste, pleasure, happiness.

So someone, like a god, could know that next Tuesday s/he will have roast beef for dinner, but the experience on the actual day will trump the previous knowledge about the dinner happening. This may be one motivation to create and to enjoy one's creation of a world: knowing the pleasures does not cancel the joy of experiencing the pleasure. In fact, certain knowledge of imminent pleasure is more reassuring and psychologically producing more joy, than the mere possibility with a hint of uncertainty of some future joy.

The omniscient being has no hope. S/he needs not to depend on hope.

The omniscient being needs no beliefs.

The omniscient being has no use for math or for philosophy.

The omniscient being needs to be able to experience things.
Thank you for that insight.
Londoner
Posts: 1783
Joined: March 8th, 2013, 12:46 pm

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by Londoner »

Renee wrote: Almight means being the power of all. The power behind all. So every breath I take, i don't take, but god takes it for me (goes the theory, or the explanation). Every move I make, I don't make, but god makes, because he has the power of all. Every move of every person, every heavenly body, every machine, every animal, every atom, and every sub-atomic particle or waveform, every cat both alive and dead, is powered by god (the almighty god).
No, that wouldn't make sense. If God has 'all the power' then God would not be the power behind actions like moving an atom, because if he needed to apply his power then that would mean he had to overcome some other power, a power that wasn't his. If God's power enables you to breathe, then God must be overcoming non-God forces that resist breathing.

If God is 'all-powerful' that cannot mean 'he is very strong'. It means that our notion of 'power' does not apply to God.
Nick_A
Posts: 3364
Joined: April 19th, 2009, 11:45 pm

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by Nick_A »

Londoner wrote:
Renee wrote: Almight means being the power of all. The power behind all. So every breath I take, i don't take, but god takes it for me (goes the theory, or the explanation). Every move I make, I don't make, but god makes, because he has the power of all. Every move of every person, every heavenly body, every machine, every animal, every atom, and every sub-atomic particle or waveform, every cat both alive and dead, is powered by god (the almighty god).
No, that wouldn't make sense. If God has 'all the power' then God would not be the power behind actions like moving an atom, because if he needed to apply his power then that would mean he had to overcome some other power, a power that wasn't his. If God's power enables you to breathe, then God must be overcoming non-God forces that resist breathing.

If God is 'all-powerful' that cannot mean 'he is very strong'. It means that our notion of 'power' does not apply to God.
Good point Londoner. We define power in relation to resistance. What would be the resistance to Creation itself? Resistance is a power within creation and often associated with a personal god. However if the source of creation IS beyond the limits of time and space there is no resistance but only affirmation.
Man would like to be an egoist and cannot. This is the most striking characteristic of his wretchedness and the source of his greatness." Simone Weil....Gravity and Grace
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by -0+ »

Fooloso4 wrote:
That's all the serpent is reported to have said. Where was the deceit?
It was an equivocation. The serpent was telling the truth about them not dying on the day they ate, but was being deceitful in not saying that because they ate on that day they would die. Had they not eaten they would have remained in the garden and eaten of the tree of life.
What reason is there to be certain this would have happened had they not eaten? What is more deceitful: to not tell the whole truth, or to tell something other than the truth?

In some versions, the serpent does not say they will not die, just that they shall not surely die. God had said to Adam that he would surely die in the day that ate from the tree; and the serpent said they will not surely die. There is lack of certainty that they will die.

How deceitful is to express lack of certainty, especially if one is not certain that something will happen? How deceitful is it to raise doubt? How deceitful is it to ask a question?

If the fruit of the tree of knowledge was not deadly itself, and any death was caused by God in response to disobedience, how can the serpent be expected to know how God would respond to the fruit eating unless God was not free to chose any other option?

How certain could God really be that he would cause them to die (hundreds of years later) unless he was powerless to choose a different course of action?
Fooloso4 wrote:
In what way did she deceive Adam?
The crime of seduction, aka being a woman. Whatever ‘knowledge’ means, it has something to do with sex.
It may be natural for readers to read between the lines and imagine things that aren't in the text. Where in Genesis does it suggest that seduction was involved? It just says that Eve gave fruit to Adam. Is giving an act of seduction? God gave Eve to Adam. Was this an act of seduction?

Whatever 'knowledge' means, having this apparently means to be like God. If 'knowing' in the biblical sense has something to do with sex, this suggests that God may be having sex, possibly with whoever he was talking to near the end of chapter 3?
Fooloso4 wrote:From God to Adam to Eve to the serpent the commandment has already been altered in two ways. First the tree in the midst of the garden is the tree of life not the tree of knowledge, and second, God said nothing to Adam about not touching it.
The tree of life was described as being in the midst of the garden, but is there any suggestion that this was the only tree in the midst of the garden? Some translations say that the tree of knowledge was in the midst (middle) of the garden too. In any case, it does appear that the commandment has been altered to some extent, and that Eve's understanding of it may be questionable. The serpent questioned this. Did God really say what God is believed to have said?

If God didn't tell Eve directly then she might be relying on second hand information from Adam. How reliable was his memory? How could he tell if any commandment he was given was really from God?
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by Fooloso4 »

-0+:
What reason is there to be certain this would have happened had they not eaten?
Whether it is a certainty that they would have eaten of the tree of life I cannot say. What is clear is that God saw it as a strong enough possibility that he banned them from the garden and barred them from returning:
Then the Lord God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of us in knowing good and evil. Now, lest he reach out his hand and take also of the tree of life and eat, and live forever—” (Genesis 3:22).
-0+:
What is more deceitful: to not tell the whole truth, or to tell something other than the truth?
In this case, the partial truth was essential to the deception. Had he told her the whole truth, that she would die as a result of eating, she might not have eaten. I cannot comment on any other story he might have told instead, either what that might have been or how successful it would have been in getting her to eat.
In some versions, the serpent does not say they will not die, just that they shall not surely die.
What we know is that if they did not eat of the tree of life they would die. We do not know how much the serpent knew. We do not know whether he knew they would be banished as a result and would die because they would be prevented from eating of the tree of life. He did know that they would become like God, and this is not what God wanted.
God had said to Adam that he would surely die in the day that ate from the tree; and the serpent said they will not surely die. There is lack of certainty that they will die.
I take it to be more a matter of the ambiguity of when they would die. It is what they did on that day that led to their death. They did not die on that day but it marked the day that they would die, the day that put immortality out of their reach.
How deceitful is to express lack of certainty, especially if one is not certain that something will happen? How deceitful is it to raise doubt? How deceitful is it to ask a question?
The serpent did not express lack of certainty, he assured her that she would not die on that day. He was telling the truth in so far as they did not die on that day, but because of what they did on that day they would die. The serpent, ‘Nachash’ is introduced by saying it was more ‘arum’, than any wild animal, that is, more cunning, crafty, wiley.
If the fruit of the tree of knowledge was not deadly itself, and any death was caused by God in response to disobedience, how can the serpent be expected to know how God would respond to the fruit eating unless God was not free to chose any other option?
I do not think death was caused by God in response to disobedience, but rather, as the serpent knew, because on that day their eyes would be opened and they would be like God, and thus God prevented them from eating of the tree of life and becoming immortal. Did the serpent know how God would respond? He knows what God knows (3:5), that their eyes would be opened and they would become like God. How much more he knew I cannot say, but that too is part of his cunning.
How certain could God really be that he would cause them to die (hundreds of years later) unless he was powerless to choose a different course of action?
God did not cause them to die, he barred them access to the fruit that if eaten would have given them immortality. He might have chosen to allow them to eat of the tree of life and live forever. That he did not does not mean he was powerless to do so.
Where in Genesis does it suggest that seduction was involved?
Therefore a man cleaves his father and his mother and cleaves to his wife, and they become one flesh. (2:24)

… the tree was to be desired to make one wise (3:6)

Now the man knew his wife Eve, and she conceived and bore Cain, saying, “I have produced a man with the help of the Lord. (4:1)

And if you do not do well, sin is lurking at the door; its desire is for you, but you must master it. (4:7)
I would say that seduction underlies the whole story. Yes, it is a matter of interpretation, but interpretation is not imagining what is not there. It is a matter of making what is implicit explicit, of making connections and seeing implications that are not spelled out in the text.
Whatever 'knowledge' means, having this apparently means to be like God. If 'knowing' in the biblical sense has something to do with sex, this suggests that God may be having sex, possibly with whoever he was talking to near the end of chapter 3?
Well, first off, if procreation is a kind of knowledge, that does not mean that knowledge is a kind of procreation. There are other forms of production that have nothing to do with sex. Second, it may well be that this early view was one in which the gods did have sex. Monotheism was a later development and does not inform Genesis.
And God saith, `Let Us make man in Our image, according to Our likeness, and let them rule over fish of the sea, and over fowl of the heavens, and over cattle, and over all the earth, and over every creeping thing that is creeping on the earth.'

And God prepareth the man in His image; in the image of God He prepared him, a male and a female He prepared them. (Genesis 1:26-27)
With both men and gods there is the singular and the plural, male and female.
The tree of life was described as being in the midst of the garden, but is there any suggestion that this was the only tree in the midst of the garden?
Yes, we might imagine there being other trees in the midst of the garden, but this is the only tree that was identified as being the tree in the midst of the garden. It is specifically identified and set apart from the other trees.
Some translations say that the tree of knowledge was in the midst (middle) of the garden too.
Which translations? Chapter and verse?
If God didn't tell Eve directly then she might be relying on second hand information from Adam. How reliable was his memory? How could he tell if any commandment he was given was really from God?
I think this does raise some questions. It may be an internal commentary on the oral tradition. We do not know where things began to change. We do not know what Adam said to Eve, only what Eve says to the serpent. Adam may have gotten it wrong or Eve may have gotten it wrong or both may have contributed to the ways in which the commandment was altered.
RuleOnu
Posts: 31
Joined: April 5th, 2017, 11:56 am

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by RuleOnu »

RuleOnu wrote:
First, to most ears "From the Christian perspective God created the world for His Glory" is invoking religion.
This is what I stated and proposed;
From the Christian perspective God created the world for His Glory. I'm not going to get into that here since researching that perspective can be easily researched on the Internet. But, I'm going to try and answer your question through secular, or atheist, reasoning, just to make things interesting.

You are taking me out of context, and proposed in bold!
Although you, as an individual don't believe in omniscience (as I don't) my Original question,...
I didn't say that, but this;
"A creator "god" would be "omniscient" in much the same way as an architect who would posses all the knowledge necessary regarding a project he creates. An architect takes into consideration any foreseeable conditions which can arise "according to varying possible"(edited) conditions, such as earthquake or fire."
isn't about you as an individual, it is addressing the greater religious community, the majority of whom do. But you can still answer my relative intellect question substituting maximal for infinite/omniscient. Still waiting. I get that you are using the "intellect can't be measured" dodge, but that's all it is. You have heard of IQ points, right?
The efficacy of "Intelligence Quotient" tests is disputed here,
http://www.aboutintelligence.co.uk/what ... gence.html
"The true sign of intelligence is imagination." Einstein.
"I know that I am intelligent, because I know that I know nothing." Socrates.

I further suggest you research the work of Dr. Howard Gardner and his "Multiple Intelligence Theory".
Lastly, my question is NOT why would a "maximally" intelligent being create us then not care about us? Rather, why would a maximally/infinitely (depending on the audience) intelligent being choose to create such a lowly system to manage/care about?
Can you provide proof and or evidence of "such a lowly system to manage/care about? Or, is that just your opinion? I find the universe highly ordered, beautiful, wondrous and amazing. Human beings even more so.

Interesting that you state this is not about me, but feel well qualified to have your own unsubstantiated opinions.
Once again the circular reasoning of the atheist on full display!
As I stated and reiterate, rejection is not an argument!

There is no certainty in philosphy!
Arguments consist of propositional and predicate logic, meaning that statements are proposed, predicated on rational assumptions.
These are not opinions.

Facts are based on contingent factors.
Example;
I am currently typing.
I will type an answer.

The Greeks used the term "qualia".
Qualia-the internal and subjective component of sense perceptions, arising from stimulation of the senses by phenomena.
Maximal-the highest or greatest possible.
Qualia and maximal are philosphical terms with philosphical meanings and understandings.
In Christianity God is described as maximally great which has to do with His goodness.

So, when engaged in philosphical discourse it's best to know concepts and precepts necessary to advance the discussion.

In this case I made arguments using definitions and citations in support.

God would have those qualities necessary to be God, worthy of contemplation and worship.

I explained the concept of intellect and don't see how any analogies have any bearing as a result especially considering the concept of a maximally great God. You are coming close to arguing logical absurdities.
Naturally, being maximally great, God, by definition, would have an intellect greater than that within any possible world.
A comparison to canines is irrelevant.
As I explained Human beings posses an intellect to be Human Beings, as would every conscious agent.
What's a world without logical distinctions? Or, do you propose every conscious agent should posses the exact same abilities and characteristics?
-0+
Posts: 240
Joined: June 19th, 2014, 5:30 pm

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by -0+ »

Fooloso4 wrote:Whether it is a certainty that they would have eaten of the tree of life I cannot say. What is clear is that God saw it as a strong enough possibility that he banned them from the garden and barred them from returning:
Did God not see this as a strong enough possibility (or a certainty if He is omniscient) before they ate from the tree of knowledge?
Fooloso4 wrote:In this case, the partial truth was essential to the deception. Had he told her the whole truth, that she would die as a result of eating, she might not have eaten
Maybe, and if God had told Adam the whole truth, that as a result of eating his eyes would be opened, he would be like God knowing good and evil, he would live for more than 900 years, and billions of his descendants would continue to live on earth thousands of years later, he might have chosen to eat earlier.

It is not clear how the serpent was more deceitful than God was in this regard.

It could be argued that God was genuinely sure that Adam would die in the day he ate the forbidden fruit at the time the commandment was issued, and that His plans for the world changed after this (requiring Adam to procreate with Eve, acquire the knowledge necessary to do this, and remain alive long enough to do this), so that God wasn't really deceitful at the time, just honestly mistaken, but this would imply that God was not omniscient of infallible.
Fooloso4 wrote:What we know is that if they did not eat of the tree of life they would die.
The same could be said regarding any food. If they did not eat any food, they would die.
Fooloso4 wrote:We do not know how much the serpent knew. We do not know whether he knew they would be banished as a result and would die because they would be prevented from eating of the tree of life. He did know that they would become like God, and this is not what God wanted.
This may have not been what God wanted, but perhaps this is what God needed? What would have happened if the serpent waited until they had eaten from the tree of life before talking to Eve?

Why would God not want man (whom He created in His image) to be like Him?
Fooloso4 wrote:I take it to be more a matter of the ambiguity of when they would die. It is what they did on that day that led to their death. They did not die on that day but it marked the day that they would die, the day that put immortality out of their reach.
This can be a way to try to resolve the apparent contradiction between what God said would happen and what actually happened, although being condemned to die is quite different from actually dying.

Another way to try to resolve this is to suggest that it was the death of their innocence - the death of who they were before they ate - like vampires and zombies who are no longer like what they were before?
Fooloso4 wrote:The serpent did not express lack of certainty, he assured her that she would not die on that day.
Translations vary. According to some versions like International Standard Version (ISV), the serpent said, "You certainly will not die!". According to other versions like New International Version (NIV), the serpent said, "You will not certainly die". One expresses certainty, the other expresses lack of certainty. Is the meaning clearer one way or the other in Hebrew?
Fooloso4 wrote:He was telling the truth in so far as they did not die on that day, but because of what they did on that day they would die. The serpent, ‘Nachash’ is introduced by saying it was more ‘arum’, than any wild animal, that is, more cunning, crafty, wiley.
The King James version says the serpent was more "subtil" ... Some people might not think there is much difference between "you will certainly not die" and "you will not certainly die". The difference may be subtle, but it is very significant.
Fooloso4 wrote:God did not cause them to die, he barred them access to the fruit that if eaten would have given them immortality.
Isn't this like saying that barring access to anything that someone needs to stay alive (like, food, water, air) does not cause them to die?
Fooloso4 wrote:He might have chosen to allow them to eat of the tree of life and live forever. That he did not does not mean he was powerless to do so.
If God was freely able to choose to allow them to eat of the tree of life and live forever, how could He really be sure at the time He issued the commandment that He would not freely choose to do that later?
Fooloso4 wrote:Yes, we might imagine there being other trees in the midst of the garden, but this is the only tree that was identified as being the tree in the midst of the garden. It is specifically identified and set apart from the other trees.
Not specifying that any other tree is in the midst of the garden does not imply that no other tree is in the midst of the garden. There may or may not be another tree. Without additional information, the existence of another tree in the midst of the garden remains unknown.
Fooloso4 wrote:
Some translations say that the tree of knowledge was in the midst (middle) of the garden too.
Which translations? Chapter and verse?
New International Version (NIV), Genesis 3:9: "[...] In the middle of the garden were the tree of life and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil" ... Some other translations are similar. The wording of King James version is vague (especially the inclusion of 'also'): "[...] the tree of life also in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil".

Does any translation suggest that the tree of life was the only tree in the midst of the garden?
Fooloso4
Posts: 3601
Joined: February 28th, 2014, 4:50 pm

Re: The almighty god vs omnipotence vs free will

Post by Fooloso4 »

-0+:
Did God not see this as a strong enough possibility (or a certainty if He is omniscient) before they ate from the tree of knowledge?
I don’t know. A case could be made that God acted like an irresponsible parent, telling Adam not to do something but doing nothing to safe guard him from doing it.
Maybe, and if God had told Adam the whole truth, that as a result of eating his eyes would be opened, he would be like God knowing good and evil, he would live for more than 900 years, and billions of his descendants would continue to live on earth thousands of years later, he might have chosen to eat earlier.
Perhaps, but it might be that, lacking knowledge of good and bad, he would not have been able to make that evaluation.
It could be argued that God was genuinely sure that Adam would die in the day he ate the forbidden fruit at the time the commandment was issued, and that His plans for the world changed after this (requiring Adam to procreate with Eve, acquire the knowledge necessary to do this, and remain alive long enough to do this), so that God wasn't really deceitful at the time, just honestly mistaken, but this would imply that God was not omniscient of infallible.
I see no problem with the idea of God being fallible. It seems pretty clear to me that the God of Genesis makes mistakes and acknowledges them, as we see with the Flood. I agree that God’s plan did change, in so far as they could no longer live in the garden and had to work to feed themselves, but death remained a consequence. As I see it, death is still a consequence for having eaten, and the only way that death would not have been a consequence is if they had been able to eat of the tree of life. But they were barred from eating of the tree of life because they had eaten of the tree of knowledge.
The same could be said regarding any food. If they did not eat any food, they would die.
But there was no food they could have eaten that would have prevented them from dying. The garden provided all the food they needed:
And out of the ground the Lord God made to grow every tree that is pleasant to the sight and good for food … (2:9)
This may have not been what God wanted, but perhaps this is what God needed?
Needed in what way? In Genesis 1 man, who is made in God’s image (and in that sense already like God) is given dominion over the earth. So, here man does play a role by helping, although it is not clear that God needed man to do this. Further, we might say that man required knowledge if he is to rule and rule well. But there is no indication in Genesis 1 that man is not already suited for the task. Genesis 2 and 3 tell a different story.
Why would God not want man (whom He created in His image) to be like Him?
That is a good question. I think the answer can be found in the story of the tower of Babel:
And the Lord said, “Behold, they are one people, and they have all one language; and this is only the beginning of what they will do; and nothing that they propose to do will now be impossible for them. (11:6)
The prospect of man doing whatever he sets out to do is troubling and made even more troubling if men lived forever. The problem is that of knowledge without wisdom, the ability to do without the wisdom to discern what should and should not be done. As the overarching story develops, man, with God’s help, seeks to become wise.
This can be a way to try to resolve the apparent contradiction between what God said would happen and what actually happened, although being condemned to die is quite different from actually dying.
On the day they ate the were condemned to die, and they did die, just not on the same day they were condemned.
Another way to try to resolve this is to suggest that it was the death of their innocence - the death of who they were before they ate - like vampires and zombies who are no longer like what they were before?
I agree that it does represent the death of innocence, but this is compatible with what I have said. They were no longer innocent and so capable of doing good and bad, of ruling and dominating, of being ruled and being dominated. Death acts as a kind of safeguard against eternal subjugation and oppression at the hands of another.
Translations vary. According to some versions like International Standard Version (ISV), the serpent said, "You certainly will not die!". According to other versions like New International Version (NIV), the serpent said, "You will not certainly die". One expresses certainty, the other expresses lack of certainty. Is the meaning clearer one way or the other in Hebrew?
First, it should be noted that the serpent’s words are close to those of God. Robert Sack’s says of God’s words at 2:17:
The words thou mayest surely eat and thou shalt surely die could more literally be translated eating, you will eat and dying you will die.
Young’s Literal Translation has:
for in the day of thine eating of it -- dying thou dost die.
Word for word we have: Kî ,כִּ֗י (for) bə-yō-wm בְּי֛וֹם (in the day) ’ă-ḵā-lə-ḵā אֲכָלְךָ֥ (that you eat) mim-men-nū מִמֶּ֖נּוּ (thereof) mō-wṯ מ֖וֹת(dying) tā-mūṯ.תָּמֽוּת׃ (you will die)

Young’s translates the serpents words as:
Dying, ye do not die
Word for word: ‘lō-’ לֹֽא־(not) ‘mō-wṯ’ מ֖וֹת(dying) tə-mu-ṯūn.תְּמֻתֽוּן׃ (you shall die)

As far as I can see there is no tentativeness on either God’s or the serpent’s part.

Dying you will die. Dying you will not die. What does this mean? Without getting into too much detail, Sacks points to the grammatical form - the cognate accusative, roughly it means something like being the kind of thing that dies (mortal/dying) you will die versus being the kind of thing that dies (mortal/dying) you will not die at the moment you eat. If man had remained in the garden and had eaten of the tree of life he would not be the kind of thing that dies. By eating he seals his fate and becomes the kind of thing that dies.
If God was freely able to choose to allow them to eat of the tree of life and live forever, how could He really be sure at the time He issued the commandment that He would not freely choose to do that later?
Man can become like a god either through immortality or knowledge. It is clear from the beginning that God did not want man to have both. He provided for immortality on the condition that they not gain knowledge. When that condition was violated he made sure they could not become immortal. He could have changed his mind, but that would mean changing his mind about whether it was good for men to be gods. The story of Genesis shows that this would not have been good.
Not specifying that any other tree is in the midst of the garden does not imply that no other tree is in the midst of the garden.
Here is the passage:
and Jehovah God causeth to sprout from the ground every tree desirable for appearance, and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil. (2:9)
-0+:
Does any translation suggest that the tree of life was the only tree in the midst of the garden?
Most set it off as the only tree mentioned that is in the midst of the garden and are clearer than (NIV), but none say explicitly that this is the only tree in the midst of the garden.

Young’s Literal Translation (YLT):
and Jehovah God causeth to sprout from the ground every tree desirable for appearance, and good for food, and the tree of life in the midst of the garden, and the tree of knowledge of good and evil.
Orthodox Jewish Bible (OJB):
And out of the adamah made Hashem Elohim to spring up kol etz (every tree) that is pleasing to the sight, and tov for food; the Etz HaChayyim (Tree of Life) also in the midst of the gan (garden), and the Etz HaDa’as Tov v’Rah
Complete Jewish Bible (CJB):
Out of the ground Adonai, God, caused to grow every tree pleasing in appearance and good for food, including the tree of life in the middle of the garden and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
Darby Translation (DARBY):
And out of the ground Jehovah Elohim made every tree grow that is pleasant to the sight, and good for food; and the tree of life, in the midst of the garden, and the tree of the knowledge of good and evil.
What we need to consider is which tree Eve is talking about when she says:
but of the fruit of the tree that is in the midst of the garden, God has said, Ye shall not eat of it, and ye shall not touch it, lest ye die. (3:3)
We know that God said not to eat of the tree of knowledge, we also know that the tree of life is the tree identified as the tree in the midst of the garden. Eve is the first one to say anything about touching the tree, God did not say anything about touching any tree, just not to eat of the tree of knowledge. Both descriptions use the singular “the tree in the midst of the garden”.
Post Reply

Return to “Philosophy of Religion, Theism and Mythology”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021