Perfect Being/Omni Problems

[Elman]

heheh...so... if i hate Elman's guts, but don't tell anyone ... then its not a sin.
got it.

I think you are getting there. We cannot control our feelings. We can control our actions. Sin is making the wrong choice; so it would only be concerning what we can make a choice on.

Too bad you aren't understanding your own position. I will refer you to a previous quote:

The Bible does say as a man thinks so is he.

This was in response to my assertion that hate is a thought crime (which, BTW, means "not a real crime"). So is thinking hateful things a sin or not? What was the point in posting that if not to make me think that "it's the thought that counts".

It is the thought behind the action that makes the action either loving or unloving. The thought alone is not what counts. The thought with the action is what counts. Thinking on hateful things will eventually lead to action that unloving. We should take whatever action we can when thinking on hateful things to bring our mind to think of something more positive.

The previous discussion was about hating being a sin. It had nothing to do with action. You've said in the past that a person connot control his thoughts. Why would acting in a positive manner eliminate those hateful thoughts? Do those thoughts or feelings simply vanish or are you advocating suppression of true feelings?

Elman: I see no reason we should not suppress our true feelings if expessing them would be harmful to others. Sin is being unloving toward someone. That can be action or inaction, as in being able to help them and not doing it. We cannot control all our thoughts. We have some control over where we place ourselves and that placement can have an effect on our thoughts.

[bugsoup]

heheh...so... if i hate Elman's guts, but don't tell anyone ... then its not a sin.
got it.

I think you are getting there. We cannot control our feelings. We can control our actions. Sin is making the wrong choice; so it would only be concerning what we can make a choice on.

Too bad you aren't understanding your own position. I will refer you to a previous quote:

The Bible does say as a man thinks so is he.

This was in response to my assertion that hate is a thought crime (which, BTW, means "not a real crime"). So is thinking hateful things a sin or not? What was the point in posting that if not to make me think that "it's the thought that counts".

It is the thought behind the action that makes the action either loving or unloving. The thought alone is not what counts. The thought with the action is what counts. Thinking on hateful things will eventually lead to action that unloving. We should take whatever action we can when thinking on hateful things to bring our mind to think of something more positive.

The previous discussion was about hating being a sin. It had nothing to do with action. You've said in the past that a person connot control his thoughts. Why would acting in a positive manner eliminate those hateful thoughts? Do those thoughts or feelings simply vanish or are you advocating suppression of true feelings?

Elman: I see no reason we should not suppress our true feelings if expessing them would be harmful to others. Sin is being unloving toward someone. That can be action or inaction, as in being able to help them and not doing it. We cannot control all our thoughts. We have some control over where we place ourselves and that placement can have an effect on our thoughts.

You still haven't answered the question. Why did you say "The Bible does say as a man thinks so is he" if not to imply that man acts on hateful thoughts? If humans don't, then shouldn't you stop using that particular bible quote.

[bugsoup]

I agree that the feeling of hate is only unloving if it is acted upon.

Sin is being unloving toward someone. That can be action or inaction[...]

So which of these do you truly believe?

[Elman]

I agree that the feeling of hate is only unloving if it is acted upon.

Sin is being unloving toward someone. That can be action or inaction[...]

So which of these do you truly believe?

Elman: I believe an inaction can be the result of a decision not to act and under some circumstances a failure to act is unloving.

[Elman]

You still haven't answered the question. Why did you say "The Bible does say as a man thinks so is he" if not to imply that man acts on hateful thoughts? If humans don't, then shouldn't you stop using that particular bible quote.

Elman: As a general rule when we act in a hateful manner, it begins with hateful thoughts. I believe however we are able to have hateful thoughts and decide to not act on them.

[donnyton]

I just realized, stemming from the "God is omniscient so we don't have free will" argument:


Since God knows all, past present future, God must know his own future, past, and completely know his own self. Therefore, he knows exactly what his will is AS WELL AS precisely what actually will happen. Therefore, God does not have free will because, being outside time, he does not have the ability to make a decision that he has not already predicted infinitely accurately, so God does not have free will and is thus not all-powerful.

Even if there were a loophole in this argument stemming from whether free will is required to be all powerful, it still doesn't work. God becomes nothing more than a robot of infinite power unable to do anything but follow his programming. But then it leaves to wonder-if God already knows everything, where did the knowledge of the future come from? Creation cannot previously exist, and since God is not defined to be knowledge, God must have somehow created the knowledge of the future and of time, and therefore must have been at one point not omniscient. But if the knowledge was already there at all times and God already knew it and just follows it, then God becomes nothing more than a superpowerful robot performing exactly according to programming.

Therefore, logically, God (nor anything else) cannot be omniscient without becoming a slave to knowledge, and cannot be omnipotent without sacrificing knowledge of the future.

[Elman]

I just realized, stemming from the "God is omniscient so we don't have free will" argument:


Since God knows all, past present future, God must know his own future, past, and completely know his own self. Therefore, he knows exactly what his will is AS WELL AS precisely what actually will happen. Therefore, God does not have free will because, being outside time, he does not have the ability to make a decision that he has not already predicted infinitely accurately, so God does not have free will and is thus not all-powerful.

Even if there were a loophole in this argument stemming from whether free will is required to be all powerful, it still doesn't work. God becomes nothing more than a robot of infinite power unable to do anything but follow his programming. But then it leaves to wonder-if God already knows everything, where did the knowledge of the future come from? Creation cannot previously exist, and since God is not defined to be knowledge, God must have somehow created the knowledge of the future and of time, and therefore must have been at one point not omniscient. But if the knowledge was already there at all times and God already knew it and just follows it, then God becomes nothing more than a superpowerful robot performing exactly according to programming.

Therefore, logically, God (nor anything else) cannot be omniscient without becoming a slave to knowledge, and cannot be omnipotent without sacrificing knowledge of the future.

I am not quite able to follow why God is the programer, but can't do anything but follow His own programming so has no free will.

[donnyton]

Perhaps thinking a bit more into it would help?

Preconceptions aside, God knows all things. Therefore God knows what he will do in the future. God becomes nothing more than a process that is fulfilling itself. It's kind of like Hegel's idea of Geist.

[Elman]

Perhaps thinking a bit more into it would help?

Preconceptions aside, God knows all things. Therefore God knows what he will do in the future. God becomes nothing more than a process that is fulfilling itself. It's kind of like Hegel's idea of Geist.

If God creates the process that is fulfilling itself, He remain more than nothing.

[eebamxela]

If God creates the process that is fulfilling itself, He remain more than nothing.

Assuming that there is such a thing as "God", the very occurrence of a simple citation of that existence equates to "God" being more than nothing. God does not become more than nothing by creating a recursive process. He become more than nothing by being existent. Your causes and effects are backward.

[Elman]

If God creates the process that is fulfilling itself, He remains more than nothing.

Assuming that there is such a thing as "God", the very occurrence of a simple citation of that existence equates to "God" being more than nothing. God does not become more than nothing by creating a recursive process. He become more than nothing by being existent. Your causes and effects are backward.

I did not say God becomes more than nothing. I said He remains more than nothing.

[bugsoup]

I agree that the feeling of hate is only unloving if it is acted upon.

Sin is being unloving toward someone. That can be action or inaction[...]

So which of these do you truly believe?

Elman: I believe an inaction can be the result of a decision not to act and under some circumstances a failure to act is unloving.

Do yuu still not understand your contradiction?

[Elman]

I agree that the feeling of hate is only unloving if it is acted upon.

Sin is being unloving toward someone. That can be action or inaction[...]

So which of these do you truly believe?

Elman: I believe an inaction can be the result of a decision not to act and under some circumstances a failure to act is unloving.

Do yuu still not understand your contradiction?

I tried to explain the first one about a feeling of hate being unloving only if acted upon. Yes that was not crorrect. We can demonstrate our hate in some cases by deliberate inaction.

[bugsoup]

Perhaps thinking a bit more into it would help?

Preconceptions aside, God knows all things. Therefore God knows what he will do in the future. God becomes nothing more than a process that is fulfilling itself. It's kind of like Hegel's idea of Geist.

If God creates the process that is fulfilling itself, He remain more than nothing.

The point is that god is the process. He doesn't create anything.

Think of it this way. If god knows everything he will do in the future, can he change his mind? There are two answers (that I can think of). Either he can change his mind, and therefore doesn't know what he will do in the future or he can't and doesn't have free will. If he doesn't have free will, then he is nothing more than a robot and therefore unworthy of worship or admiration.

[Elman]

Perhaps thinking a bit more into it would help?

Preconceptions aside, God knows all things. Therefore God knows what he will do in the future. God becomes nothing more than a process that is fulfilling itself. It's kind of like Hegel's idea of Geist.

If God creates the process that is fulfilling itself, He remain more than nothing.

The point is that god is the process. He doesn't create anything.

It is not reasonable that God becomes the process simply because He knows what He is going to do before He does it.

Think of it this way. If god knows everything he will do in the future, can he change his mind?

He can but He won't because there is no need to change His mind.

There are two answers (that I can think of). Either he can change his mind, and therefore doesn't know what he will do in the future or he can't and doesn't have free will. If he doesn't have free will, then he is nothing more than a robot and therefore unworthy of worship or admiration.

A robot is something that is created by something else A robot does not create itself. God can change His mind but being correct in the first place results in no need to change your mind. In fact if He was originally correct, to change would be to be less or imperfect. A change from perfect is to go to imperfect. That has nothing to do with God having free will and not being a robot.