A question for open-minded Christians

[Liberal]

Your basic position is that an omnipotent God must cause to happen everything that he would like to happen; otherwise he would not be omnipotent. I think you misunderstand omnipotence.

Most emphatically agreed! A being who does not even have the power to decide for himself what he will and will not do, but rather is compelled to do this or that, hardly qualifies as all powerful.

[David_God_of_Frogs]

Liberatarian: If what you are saying is that you do think that God wanted some people not to be Christian, well, I was unaware any Christians actually held that view, and if you do I don’t really have any objection. (This doesn’t apply to Jodi or UDS though, who are using the free will argument)

originally posted by UDS
Your basic position is that an omnipotent God must cause to happen everything that he would like to happen; otherwise he would not be omnipotent. I think you misunderstand omnipotence.

I’ve answered this maybe three or four times already. My position is not that God must make everyone Christian, but rather that if God’s goals are to make everybody Christian, he would have made everybody Christian.

My argument doesn’t depend on the definition of “want”, and since you object to it, let me create an alternate argument with Jodi’s definition of “want”, the only alternative proposed so far.

1. Omnipotence: the state of being in which anything that is wanted can be accomplished.
2. Want: the desire that something will come to pass
3. If an omnipotent being wants something, that which is wanted will come to pass.*
4. According to the Bible, God is omnipotent
5. According to the Bible (according to Jodi and UDS, but not Libertarian), God wants to want everybody to be Christian,
6. but doesn’t want everybody to be Christian because he wants everyone to have free will.
7. according to numbers 3 and 5, it will come to pass that God will want everybody to be Christian.
8. Since trusting the Bible for factual information leads us to contradictory statements 6 and 7, the Bible (or Jodi and UDS) is not a valid source for factual information.

*This step isn’t entirely logical based on the previous two, but to make it logical I need a definition of “desire” that is distinct from “want”.

I realize step 5 reads awkward, because it deals with two layers of wants (that’s why I like my definition of “want” better, but I’m flexible): the wants God actually acts on, and the wants that God would act on if the rules of logic let him. Again, if you object to this step, like Lib does, I don’t really have any argument, except for the follow up questions, but as far as I can tell it is step 6 that Jodi and UDS don’t like, because that is the only step that mentions free will, which they keep bringing up.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

Thankyou David, for pointing out the great conundrum of Christendom, namely how is it that an omnipotent loving God would subject His will in favour of the free will of individuals. Most of Christianity today has bought into the idea that God has arbitrarily limited those who will enter into his glory and condemn the others against his will to eternal condemnation in full view of the saved Christians. Perhaps if I may, I would like to present a view that was largely unchallenged in the early church, and mostly forgotten today.

Frog god
I’ve answered this maybe three or four times already. My position is not that God must make everyone Christian, but rather that if God’s goals are to make everybody Christian, he would have made everybody Christian

If you mean perfect, and/or greatful and worshipful of Jesus Christ, He will. Be patient. Remember** Libertarian’s** bible quote?

*John 6:40: *
For my Father’s will is that everyone who looks to the Son and believes in him shall have eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day. — Jesus

Well on the surface that would appear to exclude BCE humanity, pre-Columbian native Americans and many many others. But the apostle John expands on this by saying

John 12:31,32
“Now judgment is upon this world; now the ruler of this world shall be cast out. And I, if I be lifted up from the earth, will draw all men to Myself.”

And the apostle Paul expands on this * voluntary* universal worship

*Philippians 2:9-11 *
Therefore also God highly exalted Him, and bestowed on Him the name which is above every name, that at the name of Jesus every knee should bow, of those who are in heaven, and on earth, and under the earth, and that every tongue should confess that Jesus Christ is Lord, to the glory of God the Father.

That includes you David

That the omnipotent God will convert each and every one us has been made clear way earlier by the great prophet Isaiah who quotes God as follows;

Isaiah 45:22-24
Turn to Me, and be saved, all the ends of the earth; For I am God, and there is no other. “I have sworn by Myself, The word has gone forth from My mouth in righteousness and will not turn back, that to Me every knee will bow, every tongue will swear allegiance. They will say of Me, ‘Only in the Lord are righteousness and strength.’ Men will come to Him, And all who were angry at Him shall be put to shame.”

I would like to add that it appears no one can escape his mercy.

Let us now look at your list of statements.

1. Omnipotence: the state of being in which anything that is wanted can be accomplished. *** True***
2. Want: the desire that something will come to pass *** True***
3. If an omnipotent being wants something, that which is wanted will come to pass.* *** True***
4. According to the Bible, God is omnipotent *** True***
5. According to the Bible (according to Jodi and UDS, but not Libertarian), God wants to want everybody to be Christian, *** If I may say love and obey Christ instead of just Christian then there is truth in what all three Christians above are saying. God has a plan to bring each person in at the proper time. He doesn’t want immediate universal conversion right now. According to Paul ***

1Corinthians 20-25
But now Christ has been raised from the dead, the first fruits of those who are asleep. For since by a man came death, by a man also came the resurrection of the dead. For as in Adam all die, so also in Christ all shall be made alive. But each in his own order: Christ the first fruits, after that those who are Christ’s at His coming, then comes the end, when He delivers up the kingdom to the God and Father, when He has abolished all rule and all authority and power.

6. but doesn’t want everybody to be Christian because he wants everyone to have free will. *** Free will was granted with the creation. As earthly parents ourselves we have no joy in raising automatons. But as loving parents we do mould the free will of our children. This is what our earthly experience is all about. ***
7. according to numbers 3 and 5, it will come to pass that God will want everybody to be Christian. *** True***
8. Since trusting the Bible for factual information leads us to contradictory statements 6 and 7, the Bible (or Jodi and UDS) is not a valid source for factual information. False, I don’t see the contradiction

*This step isn’t entirely logical based on the previous two, but to make it logical I need a definition of “desire” that is distinct from “want”.

I realize step 5 reads awkward, because it deals with two layers of wants (that’s why I like my definition of “want” better, but I’m flexible): the wants God actually acts on, and the wants that God would act on if the rules of logic let him. Again, if you object to this step, like Lib does, I don’t really have any argument, except for the follow up questions, but as far as I can tell it is step 6 that Jodi and UDS don’t like, because that is the only step that mentions free will, which they keep bringing up. ]

Well you’ve raised a very fundamental problem for many Christians who believe in an omnipotent and perfect loving God, yet allow themselves to believe that God would arbitrarily restrain his love and condemn a considerable portion of humanity in favour of the higher ideal of free choice. (a fruedian slip ?)

My God loves each and every one of us with the love of a perfect parent. My God works in each and every one of us. I don’t understand why some of us are allowed to do some atrocious things for now, and people for seemingly no reason at all are subjected to horrors, but I put my trust in him, take him at his word and look forward to the day when all humanity is united in praise of Him

Romans 11:32-36
For God has shut up all in disobedience that He might show mercy to all. Oh, the depth of the riches both of the wisdom and knowledge of God. How unsearchable are His judgments and unfathomable His ways. For WHO HAS KNOWN THE MIND OF THE LORD, OR WHO BECAME HIS COUNSELOR? OR WHO HAS FIRST GIVEN TO HIM THAT IT MIGHT BE PAID BACK TO HIM AGAIN? For from Him and through Him and to Him are all things. To Him be the glory forever. Amen.

[David_God_of_Frogs]

actually, after I posted, I realized my summary of your position was pretty much dead wrong. It should be that you think that 7 is wrong, because, even though it follows from 3 and 5, such a position is logically incomprehensible. My counterargument is that being logically incomprehensible to us finite beings doesn’t prove anything, and in the meantime 3 and 5 still lead to 7.

[Jodi]

DAVID –

What is the difference between “a situation we cannot comprehend” and “a situation so far beyond our power to comprehend that it defies even being discussed”? Either way we can’t comprehend it, to different degrees of non-comprehension.

My point.

Either way, since our comprehension abilities are finite, it has no bearing on whether or not an infinite being would be able to comprehend it.

The question has never been whether God can comprehend it, but rather whether there is any use in us discussing the logically impossible and paradoxical when we cannot comprehend it. So again you have totally misconstrued my point.

While I can see a difference between the situations that you were referring to as being comprehesible only by God (i.e. Shrodinger’s cat) and the ones under discussion, the difference is only a matter of degree. There is no fine line or such.

I never posited a fine line; I never discussed limitation on God’s powers of comprehension at all. Please try to respond to what I say and not what you wish I had said.

1. why are people Christian, if not to serve God? Christians seem to shun the idea that they are Christian just to get into heaven, and the only other reason I can think of is to serve God.

People are Christian for lots of reasons. Some are Christian because they were raised to be. Some are Christian because they love God and/or hope for Heaven. Some are Christian because they fear God and/or fear hell.

2. How do I know if I’m one of the people God wants to be Christian?

Ask Him.

I’ve answered this maybe three or four times already. My position is not that God must make everyone Christian, but rather that if God’s goals are to make everybody Christian, he would have made everybody Christian.

You have restated this three of four times, but it doesn’t become any more persuasive. Again, you fail entirely to take into account the issue of free will. It’s like you think if you ignore it, or define it out of existence (“God could simultaneoulsy compel people while not compelling them”) then as a problem, it will merely go away. It won’t. It doesn’t. God can want everyone to love Him but not make everyone love Him, if He wants us to love Him freely.

[quote]
My argument doesn’t depend on the definition of “want”, and since you object to it, let me create an alternate argument with Jodi’s definition of “want”, the only alternative proposed so far.

1. Omnipotence: the state of being in which anything that is wanted can be accomplished.
2. Want: the desire that something will come to pass
3. If an omnipotent being wants something, that which is wanted will come to pass.*[/ quote]

Three is still wrong, and it doesn’t get any more right for being repeated. Just because God wants something to happen, doesn’t mean it has to happen if He has reason to refrain from compelling it to happen. What part of this are you not grasping?

4. According to the Bible, God is omnipotent
5. According to the Bible (according to Jodi and UDS, but not Libertarian), God wants to want everybody to be Christian,

I never said this. Never. The person asserting that God wants everyone to be Christian is you, not me, from your very first post. I do not believe that, and it is not my position. Life is too short to get bent out of shape by misrepresentations made by total strangers, but neither will I let them stand.

6. but doesn’t want everybody to be Christian because he wants everyone to have free will.

Totally incorrect. God may want everyone to be Christian – note the use of the word “may,” indicating this is not my personal assertion – while simultaneously wanting people to become Christian freely. If I want all my friends to love me, but to love me freely, that doesn’t mean I don’t really want them to love me. The extension of free will to humanity is not incosistent with desiring people to love Him (or, in your hypothetical, with desiring people to be Christian).

7. according to numbers 3 and 5, it will come to pass that God will want everybody to be Christian.

This still does not logically follow.

8. Since trusting the Bible for factual information leads us to contradictory statements 6 and 7, the Bible (or Jodi and UDS) is not a valid source for factual information.

Six remains false, because it posits that if God does not make everyone Christian, then God does not want everyone to be Christain – a conclusion that does not logically follow. You continue to employ a definition of “want” the requires God to accomplish everything that He wants. That is not a correct (or even a generally accepted) definition of “want.” It also infringes on the idea of omnipotence, for reasons already stated by others – if you are asserting that God “must” do something or He doesn’t really want it done, you are redefining God (as something short of omnipotent) or redefiniting “want” (as something that must be done), or both.

*This step isn’t entirely logical based on the previous two, but to make it logical I need a definition of “desire” that is distinct from “want”.

“Desire” and “want” are functional synonyms, leaving out the usual element of sexuality in the word “desire,” which I assume it is safe to do. At least you admit 3 is not logically based on 1 and 2, which it clearly is not. But no reasonable definition of “want” or “desire” would make it logically based, because it’s just not. And No. 3 remains the chief flaw in your argument; there is no reason to assert that an omnipotent being’s wanting something will automatically make it come to pass.

I realize step 5 reads awkward, because it deals with two layers of wants (that’s why I like my definition of “want” better, but I’m flexible): the wants God actually acts on, and the wants that God would act on if the rules of logic let him.

There is only one layer of “wanting,” and only one definition of “want.” God wants people to love Him freely. He “actually acts upon” that want by giving us the tools (and hopefully the desire) to come to Him, but without infringing upon our free will. (Because if He infringes upon our free will, then He cannot have what He wants – to be loved freely.) There is nothing in this that is “inconsistent with the rules of logic” or that is something other than what the rules of logic “let Him” (let Him?) do.

Again, if you object to this step, like Lib does, I don’t really have any argument, except for the follow up questions, but as far as I can tell it is step 6 that Jodi and UDS don’t like, because that is the only step that mentions free will, which they keep bringing up.

Incorrect. The problem is with 3 and 6, both of which implicate free will:

“3. If an omnipotent being wants something, that which is wanted will come to pass.” You have not satisfactorily explained why this should be so. God can want something, and yet not compel that which is wanted to come to pass. The example under discussion is why God would want everyone to love Him freely, but not compel that to come to pass. And the answer to that is that the definition of “love Him freely” precludes compelling us to love Him – and I mean “precludes” in the sense of logical impossibility, a limitation on our ability to conceptualize and discuss, not a limitation on God’s ability to do. Your only response to this (so far) has been to theorize a situation in which God compels us while simultaneously not compelling us – which remains nonsense (i.e., something that makes no sense and is beyond our ability to conceptualize and discuss). If God wants us to love Him freely, not only can He want something and refrain from fulfilling His own desire, He must refrain from fulfilling His own desire, because He cannot compel us to love Him freely.

“6. but doesn’t want everybody to be Christian because he wants everyone to have free will.” As explained above, the desire that everyone have free will (or the granting of free will to everyone) is not inconsistent with the desire that everyone love Him through the exercise of that free will and not through compulsion. So 3 is wrong, and 6 is wrong, and both are grounded in the human concept of free will.

NIGHTTIME –

As I have already said, God could simply predict which free willed people would eventually convert to christianity and create only those people.

Then they’re not “free willed people,” are they? The concept of “free will” or a choice freely made is not consistent with creating a people who will all “choose” to do one thing. That is not a “choice,” and free will implies choice.

But there are other ways. If you saw a dollar lying on the ground and picked it up, did that dollar take away your free will?

Did the dollar create the situation in which I have no choice but to pick it up? If so, then yes, the dollar took away my freee will.

Or did you choose to pick it up? What if someone put the dollar there, and predicted that you would pick it up? Did they take your free will away?

Did they predict I would pick it up, or did they take away every option except for picking it up? Prediction of future action is not compulsion. Making one choice more attractive than another is not generally compulsion. Taking away every choice but one (which is of course not a choice at all) obviates free will. Obviously.

God can predict all possible results of all possible events, so do you really doubt that god could find a combination of events that would cause people to choose christianity on their own?

If he is “causing” people to choose Christianity, then they’re not choosing it “on their own,” are they? Free will and compulsion cannot coexist, DAVID’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. So everytime you introduce the concept of compulsion into the equation (God “causing” belief), then you are removing free will.

Or is the fact that god knew it would happen enough to take away all our responsibility for our own actions? This is not quite the paradox you think it is, certainly not on the level of making a square circle.

On the contrary; it is. If God makes you love Him, then you’re not loving Him freely. Period. Free will and compulsion do not coexist, and theorizing that they can or do is precisely the same as theorizing a square circle.

What if I predict that you will disagree with my argument? Am I taking away your free will and forcing you to disagree? Or are you simply choosing to do so?

Please see above regarding the difference between prediction and compulsion. These are not the same.

GRIENSPACE –

Most of Christianity today has bought into the idea that God has arbitrarily limited those who will enter into his glory and condemn the others against his will to eternal condemnation in full view of the saved Christians.

This is not what I believe. This is not what my congregation believes. This is not what my chuch believes. Most non-fundamentalist American Christians absolutely and forcefully deny this.

[Jodi]

Stated more explicitly:

Compulsion = A, free will = B.

Compulsion is defined as the absence of free will. In logical terms, A = [not B].

Free will is defined as the absence of compulsion. In logical terms, B = [not A].

Therefore, as a matter of logic – not of theology – A != B, because A != [not A] and B != [not B].

Therefore, when you try to assert in any universe that A = B, you must either first redefine A or B, or admit that your assertion is wrong and/or nonsensical. This is a limitation on you, on the definitions, and on logic. It is not a limitation on God.

[The_Flying_Dutchman]

*Originally posted by Jodi *

GRIENSPACE –

This is not what I believe. This is not what my congregation believes. This is not what my chuch believes. Most non-fundamentalist American Christians absolutely and forcefully deny this.

Okay {b]Jodi**, what Ii should have said with regard to the prevalent modern Christian view is that not everyone gets to enter into His glory, and that is what I disagree with.

I believe the idea that God’s desire that we love him with our free will as being inconsistant with the idea that He is the author and finisher of our faith somewhat confusing.

Afterall, a parent works at correcting and shaping the free will of his child. If your a parent, you know what thats like. And you know that us human parents make lots of mistakes. Can not an omnipotent God do the same for all his children? And succeed every time?

[Jodi]

I believe the idea that God’s desire that we love him with our free will as being inconsistant with the idea that He is the author and finisher of our faith somewhat confusing.

Sure it’s confusing. Why would He lead some to believe, and lead others to non-belief? I don’t pretend to have all (or even many) of the answers regarding the nature of God, and that’s one thing I don’t know. What I believe is that everyone has the opportunity to enter into His glory, Christian or not, and those who do not are those who have squandered or turned down the opportunity He has presented to them. I do not believe in predestination; I do not believe that Christianity is the only path to salvation (though I do believe it is the best path, as is my selfish right as a Christian). I don’t know why God does the things He does, why I am a believer and another person of good will and reasonable intelligence is not. So “somewhat confusing” is probably an understatement.

Afterall, a parent works at correcting and shaping the free will of his child. If your a parent, you know what thats like. And you know that us human parents make lots of mistakes. Can not an omnipotent God do the same for all his children? And succeed every time?

I don’t know. I do know that if you take His succeeding every time as a forgone conclusion, then you have removed the element of choice, and we therefore (once again) are definitionally not talking about free will. I don’t pretend to know where the line is between teaching or leading or persuading, and compelling or coercing, but it seems to me that if the result is a foregone conclusion, then we obviously are not talking about the exercise of free will.

[UDS]

*Originally posted by David, God of Frogs *
*1. Omnipotence: the state of being in which anything that is wanted can be accomplished.
2. Want: the desire that something will come to pass
3. If an omnipotent being wants something, that which is wanted will come to pass.

This step isn’t entirely logical based on the previous two, but to make it logical I need a definition of “desire” that is distinct from “want”.*

Not only is it not entirely logical, but it’s not logical at all. You’ve moved from “can” in the first statement to “will” in the third.

If this step is flawed - and I still think it is - the entire argument falls from there on.

[Nightime]

Then they’re not “free willed people,” are they? The concept of “free will” or a choice freely made is not consistent with creating a people who will all “choose” to do one thing. That is not a “choice,” and free will implies choice.

Everyone chooses to do something, but it wasn’t a choice? Of course it was a choice. The people who are choosing to be christian in my scenario are no different than the people who choose to be christian now. Either they both have free will, or nobody has free will, not even us. The only difference is that in my scenario people who god predicts would not choose christianity are simply not created.

Did the dollar create the situation in which I have no choice but to pick it up? If so, then yes, the dollar took away my freee will.

You make it seem much too easy to take free will away. I believe people are responsible for their own actions. You have a choice to pick up the dollar or not. Just because I know you will take the dollar doesn’t mean you didn’t make the choice on your own.

Did they predict I would pick it up, or did they take away every option except for picking it up? Prediction of future action is not compulsion. Making one choice more attractive than another is not generally compulsion. Taking away every choice but one (which is of course not a choice at all) obviates free will. Obviously.

I never said anything about taking away all options except one. God could easily cause people to become christians, just by making that choice more attractive. It would not be compulsion. It is simply prediction - god can predict all possible chains of events, so he could cause anything to happen without actually compelling anyone to do anything.

If he is “causing” people to choose Christianity, then they’re not choosing it “on their own,” are they? Free will and compulsion cannot coexist, DAVID’s assertion to the contrary notwithstanding. So everytime you introduce the concept of compulsion into the equation (God “causing” belief), then you are removing free will.

Causing something is very different than compelling someone to do something. Everything you do has consequences that you can’t even see. You cause many things that you did not intend. For instance, you might leave your door unlocked and that causes a criminal to rob your house instead of a neighbor’s. But you certainly didn’t take away the criminal’s free will and compel them to rob your house! But what if you predicted that it would cause them to do so? You still did not take away their free will. It was still their choice.

Please see above regarding the difference between prediction and compulsion. These are not the same.

Exactly. And god could cause everyone to choose christianity without compulsion. In the same way that if you could predict all the consequences of your actions you could cause someone to rob your house. Prediction, not compulsion. In other words, god works in mysterious ways.

[Liberal]

If what you are saying is that you do think that God wanted some people not to be Christian, well, I was unaware any Christians actually held that view, and if you do I don’t really have any objection.

Listen to me carefully. Do not — DO NOT — continue to put words in my mouth. It is clear to me now that you are trolling here. And I intend to contribute nothing more to it. Well, except…

[Mangetout]

This debate appears to have moved to a more suitable forum.

[UDS]

*Originally posted by Mangetout *
**This debate appears to have moved to a more suitable forum. **

Gosh. There’s not really much more to be said on this thread, is there?

[kittenblue]

This is my first visit to Great Debates, so I may be completely out of the loop, but after reading this entire thread, the thing that I am struck by is David’s need to only believe things that can be logically proved, that hold up intellectually (his words) and that have no inconsistencies. I understand that a lot of people are like this, but as many others have stated, religion is a matter of faith, not proof.

God asks only that we love one another. Love is not logical, or consistent, or even based on fact. It requires that we let go of those constrictions, and let faith guide us. God has provided many paths for finding this love, that we label as Christian, or Jew, or whatever. The path we choose isn’t as important as the choice, and that can’t be forced.

[David_God_of_Frogs]

Instead of telling me what I said that you disagree with, you start your own pit thread. That’s mature.

originally posted by Jodi
“Desire” and “want” are functional synonyms, leaving out the usual element of sexuality in the word “desire,” which I assume it is safe to do. At least you admit 3 is not logically based on 1 and 2, which it clearly is not. But no reasonable definition of “want” or “desire” would make it logically based, because it’s just not. And No. 3 remains the chief flaw in your argument; there is no reason to assert that an omnipotent being’s wanting something will automatically make it come to pass.

Well, so if you are admitting that “want” and “desire” are synonyms, which is what I thought but I was giving you the benifit of the doubt, then you’ve used a word in its own definition, so of course anything that follows isn’t going to be logically correct. If that is your main objection, I need either a defintion of “desire” that is distinct from “want”, or else another definition of “want”.

(BTW, while I did use the word “want(ed)” in my definition, it referred to something else, the object of one’s wants, so it doesn’t go in the same category. For instance, if I wanted a bicycle, you’d just substitute “bicycle” for “that which is wanted”.)

originally posted by UDS
Not only is [the third step] not entirely logical, but it’s not logical at all. You’ve moved from “can” in the first statement to “will” in the third.

No, I’ve moved from “will” in the second to “will” in the third.

I’ve said before that if anyone thinks that God, in fact, doesn’t want everyone to be Christian, say so, and I don’t really have an argument. What I am arguing is that this and God wanting everyone to be Christian are, in fact, are the only two possible positions, and the middle one that “God could have made everyone Christian, but it would have undermined their free will” (If this isn’t your position, tell me what is) isn’t logical.

Grienspace: I guess there’s an implied 6(a), that says, based on 6, that not everyone is Christian (this is number 6 in the old argument). If you disagree with that, even to the extent that you do, I think I’m in agreement with you. That Phillipans quote was low though (no pun intended).

originally posted by Jodi
Stated more explicitly:

Compulsion = A, free will = B.

Compulsion is defined as the absence of free will. In logical terms, A = [not B].

Free will is defined as the absence of compulsion. In logical terms, B = [not A].

Therefore, as a matter of logic – not of theology – A != B, because A != [not A] and B != [not B].

Therefore, when you try to assert in any universe that A = B, you must either first redefine A or B, or admit that your assertion is wrong and/or nonsensical. This is a limitation on you, on the definitions, and on logic. It is not a limitation on God.

My assertion is nonsensensical. So, or at least as I am attempting to prove, is your assertion that 7 doesn’t follow from 3 and 5. We have two nonsensical positions and none that make sense, thus a paradox. Let’s step back and figure out exactly the ways that each position doesn’t make sense.

We are all coming from a finite perspective, trying to make sense of an infinite world. We must do this as best we can, and as far as anyone can tell, logical contradictions don’t make sense. We can though, even though we can’t comprehend how this might happen, comprehend the fact that an infinite being can harbor contradictions and have it make sense. Therefore, a contradiction in logic based on facts that are observable from our perspective - according to the Bible, God is omnipotent and wants everybody to be Christian - is stronger than a contradiction that comes from the perspective of an omnipotent being - i.e. relating to what his actions are. You can’t contradict yourself; God can.

originally posted by Jodi
The question has never been whether God can comprehend it, but rather whether there is any use in us discussing the logically impossible and paradoxical when we cannot comprehend it.

Well, we’re not trying to comprehend it. We’re just trying to establish that it exists.

It’s not letting me preview so I hope this looks good.

[Liberal]

Instead of telling me what I said that you disagree with, you start your own pit thread.

You equivocated. I told you that on page 1.

You spoke of Christians in one sense as ideal Christlike personages in your statements (2) and (3), but then spoke of them as general population self-labelers when you later observed that there are “so many” of them. If in fact your statements are true (and you have established no basis for their truth), then there are not many but few if any.

[Polycarp]

David, do you have respect for the opinions of others? From what I’ve seen here, I believe you do.

Would it not be a fair statement to say that, in opening a GD, you want to get people to agree with you? Yet you attempt to persuade them to agree with you, not to compel their agreement.

Can you see the analogy? If there is an omnipotent God, it is within His powers to compel belief – or to refrain from doing so. If there is an omniagapetic God, as is the belief of Christians, he desires that all people should come to choose to love Him and to believe in Him out of love. Guinastasia’s thread on this theme may be quite apropos.

[Ottto]

Your argument is assumptive. You post 4 statements, of your own make, and assume that 3 of them must be true.

1. No where in the bible does it state that God is specifically ‘omnipotent’.

2. No where in the bible does it state that everyone should become a Christian, from God’s mouth or anybody elses.

3. There is no biblical standard for Christianity, apart from accepting Christ as the Savior and the son of God.

4. Parts of the bible deal with facts. Parts of the bible deal with sprituality. The parts that DO deal with facts cannot really be proven or disproven by our current archealogical means.

You make a poor argument. You cannot randomly list a few things, say that they must be true, and I dare you to disprove it. Since you are basing your statements on opinions, and you do not appear to have ever actually read the bible, ALL of your statements are false, as presented.

[Jodi]

NIGHTTIME –

Everyone chooses to do something, but it wasn’t a choice? Of course it was a choice. The people who are choosing to be christian in my scenario are no different than the people who choose to be christian now. Either they both have free will, or nobody has free will, not even us. The only difference is that in my scenario people who god predicts would not choose christianity are simply not created.

If you only have one choice, how can you say you have any choice? You don’t. If there is only one path to go down, then you’re not “choosing” your path. This is not theology; it’s English. If God only creates people who would do what He wanted them to do anyway, then there is no free will, because for them there is only one path. You cannot say that He would only create those who would “freely choose” to follow him. Where is their “free choice?” What they will do has been determined since before their creation. That is not free will.

You make it seem much too easy to take free will away. I believe people are responsible for their own actions. You have a choice to pick up the dollar or not. Just because I know you will take the dollar doesn’t mean you didn’t make the choice on your own.

Sure. But prediction is not compulsion. You don’t know that I will take the dollar, though you may predict it, and perhaps confidently so. But unless you have taken away every other choice from me except picking up the dollar, then you don’t know that I will. In your scenario, God takes away every other choice but picking up the dollar (by only creating people who will do so). In those circumstances, there is no free will.

I never said anything about taking away all options except one. God could easily cause people to become christians, just by making that choice more attractive. It would not be compulsion. It is simply prediction - god can predict all possible chains of events, so he could cause anything to happen without actually compelling anyone to do anything.

The only way you can even theorize that God could do that is by creating only people who would “choose” one path, and failing to create people who would choose the other. Do you really not see that this is not a choice? Once you are talking about God “causing” people to be Christian (i.e., compelling them), you are by definition not talking about a choice freely made. Yes, God can make Christianity more attractive; that is persuasion, not compulsion. But how could he make people choose to be Christian without making them choose to be Christian? Because that’s what you’re saying – you’re saying he would cause/compel/make them Christian while simultaneously not causing/compelling/making them. That is definitionally impossible, as has already been explained.

Causing something is very different than compelling someone to do something.

What? No, it’s not. What is the difference between “causing” someone to be Christian or “compelling” them to be Christian? Either way, you are choosing it, not them. If it remains their free choice, then you did not cause it. And a discussion of unintended consequences is irrelevant to a discussion of God, for whom presumably all consequences are intended.

Exactly. And god could cause everyone to choose christianity without compulsion.

You have not explained how that could possibly be. If He takes away all choices but one, He is compelling the result. Nothing short of taking away all choices but one would constitute “causing” the result.

I may make a particular choice very, very attractive, to entice you to make it. I may even predict you will make it. But unless I give you no other choice, I have not caused you to make it.

DAVID –

Well, so if you are admitting that “want” and “desire” are synonyms, which is what I thought but I was giving you the benifit of the doubt, then you’ve used a word in its own definition, so of course anything that follows isn’t going to be logically correct. If that is your main objection, I need either a defintion of “desire” that is distinct from “want”, or else another definition of “want”.

I don’t think so. From dictionary.com: “Want: to desire greatly; wish for.” From Merriam-Webster Online: “Want: to desire to come, go, or be.” From YourDictionary.com: “Want: to desire to come, go, or be.” Note that none of these definitions include the qualifier that the thing that is wanted must come to pass, if possible, which was (and is) what was wrong with your definition. If you now wish to assert that you don’t know the meaning of the word “want,” that’s up to you. Look it up.

(BTW, while I did use the word “want(ed)” in my definition, it referred to something else, the object of one’s wants, so it doesn’t go in the same category. For instance, if I wanted a bicycle, you’d just substitute “bicycle” for “that which is wanted”.)

I have no idea what this means.

I’ve said before that if anyone thinks that God, in fact, doesn’t want everyone to be Christian, say so, and I don’t really have an argument. What I am arguing is that this and God wanting everyone to be Christian are, in fact, are the only two possible positions, and the middle one that “God could have made everyone Christian, but it would have undermined their free will” (If this isn’t your position, tell me what is) isn’t logical.

You have singularly failed to prove why it is not logical. In fact, it is, because quite obviously God cannot compel us to act of free will (as has been explained ad nauseam at this point. Therefore the only logical thing for a God who wants people to love Him freely to do is to simultaneously want them to love him and not compel them to love Him (because if He compels them, the love is not free). Compare that (in terms of a high logic quotient) to the argument that God could compel people to love him freely. A statement that continues to make zero sense.

My assertion is nonsensensical. So, or at least as I am attempting to prove, is your assertion that 7 doesn’t follow from 3 and 5. We have two nonsensical positions and none that make sense, thus a paradox. Let’s step back and figure out exactly the ways that each position doesn’t make sense.

First, two nonsensical positions do not equal a paradox. Perhaps you’d like to look that word up as well. Second, my position is not nonsensical (or paradoxical), because it does not require that we define A as [not A] – compelled as “not compelled.” Your position does.

We are all coming from a finite perspective, trying to make sense of an infinite world. We must do this as best we can, and as far as anyone can tell, logical contradictions don’t make sense. We can though, even though we can’t comprehend how this might happen, comprehend the fact that an infinite being can harbor contradictions and have it make sense.

So what? If it doesn’t make sense to us and we can’t comprehend it, who cares? This is like positing the square circle – well God could make that! Who cares? We have no way to grasp the concept, much less discuss it, because a figure cannot be both round and square, and if you say it is one, it definitionally can’t be other, much less both. So where does that leave us? It is an impossibility, as is compelled non-compulsion. It cannot exist. And if it cannot exist, then the assertion that it exists is a non-starter – is, in fact, nonsense.

Therefore, a contradiction in logic based on facts that are observable from our perspective - according to the Bible, God is omnipotent and wants everybody to be Christian - is stronger than a contradiction that comes from the perspective of an omnipotent being - i.e. relating to what his actions are. You can’t contradict yourself; God can.

Listen to me. I am going to make one last attempt at this, and then I’m giving up. At that point, feel free to conclude you have “won” the debate, but be advised I will probably conclude you just don’t get it: God cannot simultaneously compel and not compel, because those two states definitionally cannot coexist. That difficulty exists because of their definitions – one excludes the other. For the same reason, God cannot transform black into white – because once He does, it’s not black anymore, it’s white. That is the limitation of the definitions of terms that exclude each other – up and down, in and out, impossible to lift and liftable, compelled and not compelled. One by definition cannot include the other. God cannot simultaneously compel and not compel, because the definitions of those terms does not allow it. That impossibility is inherent in defining one term – any term – as excluding another. It has nothing to do with the omnipotence of God, and everything to do with being able to grasp the fundamentals of logic and language.

Well, we’re not trying to comprehend it. We’re just trying to establish that it exists.

If you can’t comprehend it, how on earth would you ever be able to establish it exists? I don’t mean “comprehend” in the sense of “understanding every little detail,” I mean “comprehending” in the sense of even being able to wrap your mind around. The idea of compelled non-compulsion is incomprehensible – one that you cannot wrap your mind around – because it by definition makes no sense. It’s like theorizing the existence of the proverbial square circle. How can we theorize that it exists when we don’t even know what the hell it is? So how about this: Since you apparently theorize the existence of such a thing as compelled non-compulsion, then you define that term for me, and we’ll continue the discussion under your definition. Be advised, however, that a definition of either compulsion or not compulsion will not do; it must be both at once. Good luck with that.

And I would also point out that the discussion we’re having now has nothing whatsoever to do with theology. It has to do with logic, with the worth (or, rather, lack of worth) of the internally inconsistent definition, and with the idea of paradox. With respect, you don’t appear to have a very strong grasp on any of these ideas.

[quote]

[David_God_of_Frogs]

Since doing what I’ve been doing so far hasn’t been succesful at accomplishing anything at all, I am going to attempt to step out of myself for a second and see it from your point of veiw. Feel free to correct me if I misrepresent your position.

The definition of “Christian” that the Bible uses includes that the descision to become Christian must be made out of one’s own free will, and as such, God cannot make everyone Christian, because doing so would infringe on their free will, which was a condition of their Christianity in the first place. The phrase “God cannot” doesn’t clash with his being omnipotent because…actually I’m not sure why not (or should I not even ask the question in the first place). It is meaningless to talk about whether God wanted people to be Christian if he could do it without infringing on their free will, for reasons outlined above.

I have a few questions about that point of veiw - not objections if you can answer them, but questions. First, I thought that the whole reason God created humans (and gave them free will) was so that some of them would be Christian. If talking about whether God wants people to be Christian is meaningless outside of the parameters of human free will (which God’s descision whether or not to make people is), then why did God create humans? And then what about after the second coming (or in heaven) - isn’t that a situation where everyone is both Christian and has free will? If that is the case, is there some parameter restricting God to that situation after death or the second coming? and again, how does God’s being restricted tie in with his omnipotence? I’ll probably come up with more, those are the ones I can think of at the moment.