Well, in his created world how did things become pious and sinful? — Vanbrainstorm

I do not know. There are two possibilities. A. He created pious and sinful things. B. Things became pious and sinful through the choices they made. A. is problematic because why would an all good creator create sinful things? B. however, begs the question though. If they made choices that made them sinful God would know before hand and God knows its creation has the potentiality to be sinful. Therefore God created sinful things. However, how you deduce from that that God is programmed is beyond me.

It's called the Dunning Kruger effect.

So if God (since you don't understand what all-power means) in your view can cease to exist while making the "appearance" of his existence remain, you have no proof God has ever existed in your life time. — Gregory

How does that follow? Like so many here, you seem to have difficulty distinguishing between being able to do something and actually doing it. I can lie, yes? Yet if I say "it is raining where I am" you have good prima facie evidence that it is raining where I am.

It's just as likely, in your view, that you are a goblin and the rest of us elves, because God can make it appear so. — Gregory

No, that simply doesn't follow. It's possible I am dreaming right now. That doesn't mean it is just as likely I am dreaming as that I am perceiving reality.

There are two possibilities. A. He created pious and sinful things. B. Things became pious and sinful through the choices they made. A. is problematic because why would an all good creator create sinful things? B. however, begs the question though. If they made choices that made them sinful God would know before hand and God knows its creation has the potentiality to be sinful. — Tobias

I think B is true.

But why think God would know how we'd exercise our free will? God can make himself ignorant of anything he wants to. And it seems positively disrespectful to pry into the private thoughts and desires of free agents. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to think that God doesn't know how free agents will exercise their free will. Not becasue he 'can't' know, but because he doesn't want to.

I don't see a problem with B, then.

And some, of course, do abuse their free will. Us, for example. And here we are: condemned to live among others who have done the same.

I did my best to be be polite and respectful while trying to throw in a little humor - obviously I did not succeed.

You may be correct about being ungrateful - I should have thanked you for your response and I didn't. I apologize for that. Seriously.

I think he's a bot

But you also think Descartes wrote 5 meditations, think Descartes thought God's power was limited and think Descartes' ontological argument for God is the same as Anselm's. So I think your thoughts have something of a credibility problem and you shouldn't place too much store by them. Wiser to trust mine. And I don't think I'm a bot.

You still haven't said what fixes God's nature. Barty Bot wants to know! Tell Barty Bot.

God can make himself ignorant of anything he wants to. And it seems positively disrespectful to pry into the private thoughts and desires of free agents. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to think that God doesn't know how free agents will exercise their free will. Not becasue he 'can't' know, but because he doesn't want to. — Bartricks

So it is more important for God to allow free will than to protect the victims of violent acts?

God & Free will Paradox

One of the main reasons why we doubt our free will is our nature - our preferences not something we chose.

God is seen as having a nature viz. benevolence, in fact God's omnibenevolent. No free will!

However, God's also omnipotent i.e. he can defy his nature. Free will!

The paradox: God has free will (omnipotent) & God doesn't have free will (omnibenevolent)

So it is more important for God to allow free will than to protect the victims of violent acts? — SolarWind

No, I would imagine that it is more important to God to respect the privacy of free agents than it is to know exactly what they are going to decide to do. But there is a space between decision and action and I am sure that God - being omnibenevolent and all powerful - would intervene to protect innocent victims from a free agent's violent acts. You are too, I take it?

That is confused. Omniscience and omnibenevolence flow from omnipotence.

If you're omnipotent, then you are Reason, for then and only then would you have the power to do anything.

And if you're Reason then you are also the author of the moral law and the creator of all moral values.

And if you're all powerful - as you would be, being Reason - then you have the power to make yourself however you wish to be.

And so it is reasonable to believe that an omnipotent person will be exactly as she wishes to be. That is, she will fully value how she is and won't want to change a thing.

And when you're Reason and feel that way about yourself, then you are morally perfect, for to be morally perfect is to be maximally valued by Reason. So God is free - as free as can be, for there is nothing restricting what she does - and she fully values herself - and so is omnibenevolent as well.

You are trying to generate a puzzle, but your way of doing it turns morality into some curious external force that binds God. It is nothing remotely like that: it is an aspect of God's will.

If everything flows from omnipotence then how come this:

We've arranged a global civilization in which most crucial elements profoundly depend on science and technology. We have also arranged things so that almost no one understands science and technology. This is a prescription for disaster. We might get away with it for a while, but sooner or later this combustible mixture of ignorance and power is going to blow up in our faces. — Carl Sagan (The Demon-Haunted World)

What about this too :point: Lex Luthor (evil genius)?

I do not understand your question.

I explained above how it is that omnibenevolence flows from omnipotence. I don't understand what you're talking about now.

I do not understand your question. — Bartricks

Never mind!

Bart Bot minds. What was the meaning of your question?

So it is more important for God to allow free will than to protect the victims of violent acts? — SolarWind

It is more important to protect innocent people from violent acts (strange circumstances aside). And so God has done precisely that. That's the reasonable conclusion, anyway, once it is clear that God exists.

I mean, what do you think you're doing here? You think God would suffer innocent people to live in ignorance in a world like this one? Of course he wouldn't. So join the dots. He hasn't. And that you are living in ignorance in a dangerous world tells you something: you're not innocent. You're not here to be benefitted - for there is no benefit an omnipotent has to expose you to danger to give you - you're here to be punished. You're being exposed to the ignorance and attendant dangers that you would freely have subjected another to had God not prevented you from doing so. That's the only reasonable conclusion, anyway.

Bart Bot minds. What was the meaning of your question? — Bartricks

Your claim is debatable, that's all.

Your claim is debatable, that's all. — TheMadFool

Is it? Which bit?

Does not being omnipotent require being Reason?

And does not being Reason mean that one will be the arbiter of moral value?

And does not being omnipotent imply being exactly as one values being?

Is it? Which bit? — Bartricks

Sorry, you'll have to figure that out yourself. I'm :confused:, remember?

God is shorthand for 'a person who is omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent' such that if you have those qualities you are God. It's like Dr. If you have a PhD, you are a dr. — Bartricks

Conversely, if you don’t have a PHD, you lose the doctorate, yes?

If God decides to relinquish one of the Os is he still God?

If God decides to relinquish one of the Os is he still God? — khaled

I thought once you lose an essence, you stop being that which the essence is a feature of. So, once you're not a wolf, and you aren't domesticated, you stop being a dog. In short an undomesticated non-wolf is a dog is nonsensical.

But why think God would know how we'd exercise our free will? God can make himself ignorant of anything he wants to. And it seems positively disrespectful to pry into the private thoughts and desires of free agents. So I think it is perfectly reasonable to think that God doesn't know how free agents will exercise their free will. Not becasue he 'can't' know, but because he doesn't want to. — Bartricks

God is defined as an omniscient being. The moment God turns himself into an non-omniscient being he would no longer be God. The question is similar to the question whether God can create another God. Also you seem to think God exists in time similar to the way human's do and that he pries in the same way as humans pry in private affars. However God does not exist in time similar to humans as he would than be under the rule of time and hence limited. God though is an unlimited being.

We are left with an unlimited omnisicent being, qua the definition of God.

Now of course God can limit himself. He became men in the Christian vision, but he did not lose the qualities of God as God. That is why he is three in one. (trinity).

One of the main reasons why we doubt our free will is our nature - our preferences not something we chose.

God is seen as having a nature viz. benevolence, in fact God's omnibenevolent. No free will!

However, God's also omnipotent i.e. he can defy his nature. Free will!

The paradox: God has free will (omnipotent) & God doesn't have free will (omnibenevolent) — TheMadFool

Omnibenevolence does not stand in the way of free will. He can act otherwise, but he does not, he only acts in benevolent ways. This does bring the theodicy to the fore of course. Why are there sinful things in a creation of a benevolent being?

we do not need to concern ourselves with whether God exists. — Bartricks

So, for the second time, you are referring to an imaginary "God"!

You don't understand either the simple thing that I am saying above or what you yourself are saying. Well, the first time this was funny but now it's sad.

You can't lose what you don't have. But yes, if you don't have a phd, then you are not a dr. What's difficult to understand here?

If God decides to relinquish one of the Os is he still God? — khaled

God was bored that morning. Despite His eternal being, in his all-encompassing potency and sapiency, in His infinite goodness. He wished there was something He couldn't do or didn't know.To be devilishly bad. To even die! And the world came into existence with a big flashing bang...

No. Of course not.

But there is a space between decision and action and I am sure that God - being omnibenevolent and all powerful - would intervene to protect innocent victims from a free agent's violent acts. — Bartricks

So you really believe that throughout history there has not been a single case of an innocent victim being tortured to death because God would have intervened?

Please name the planet on which you live.

Why would the nature of a god necessarily be circumscribed by what we are capable of attributing to him? Does it matter if a god is technically omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent in every possible sense if he can kick your ass when you're screwing up? And we all know what screwing up truly is: purposefully harming the Earth, harming the people around us in a wanton way.

Even if gods are not a prime mover in some metaphysical, logically irrefutable sense, proved to transcend the entire universe, billions of humans seem to get the impression that gods have an interest in making sure life on this planet is sustained, preserving the experience we have of our own willing, giving humans what they deserve if we're behaving badly, etc.

Perhaps some humans haven't been humbled by gods such that they're willing to fully acknowledge this, but not everyone needs the experience of dodging lightning bolts in order to understand that actions have moral consequences, and gods would hold us accountable if we have what is almost common knowledge of how to effectuate a harmonious society and ecosystem, yet still willfully screw up what surrounds us.

Thinking that it is humanity's place to judge the spiritual power and prerogative of gods is the height of fallacy. The best we can do is accept our fates, make the most of our opportunities, try to improve, learn from our mistakes, and not screw up when we know what the hell we are doing.

So you really believe that throughout history there has not been a single case of an innocent victim being tortured to death because God would have intervened?

Please name the planet on which you live. — SolarWind

You don't seem to be very good at reasoning. No, I think there has not been a single case of an innocent being tortured to death. God would not allow it.

Now, baby steps. People are tortured to death in this world. But God would not allow innocent people to be tortured to death. So, guess what? We're not innocent. And God doesn't care what happens to us here. He doesn't like us. Hence the torturing (which, note, he's not doing to us - we do that to each other); hence the ignorance.