God can force people to become christians, but chooses not to. God also has free-will. God COULD, in theory, poof make everyone a christian, but that wouldn’t be in line his ‘free-will’ doctrine.
The presumption that God created mankind, so that they might all become Christians, seems false.
While I am Catholic, I am by no means a creationist, so the following may be flawed logic, BUT…God created mankind to do whatever they pleased. Granted, HE would not be pleased unless they did X,Y, and Z, but still, there was no ‘mind control’ involved. People were, and are, free to become animists, pagans, zoroastrians, whatever. But don’t expect a ticket through the pearly gates if you chose to become a shinto priest.l
You are to be commended for your decision to regroup and make inquiries.
The definition of omnipotence in general philosophy (and theology in particular) is not the ability to do anything period, but rather the ability to do anything that can be done. Using that definition, you can see that there is no contradiction between God’s omnipotence and His inability to create a real number solution to the square root of -1. It is unreasonable to demand that nonsense be done at all by anyone of any capacity.
God values goodness above all else. C. S. Lewis said that God values goodness so much that, were there a being more good than He, He would worship it. God created people because He loves them. There is nothing more “good” than love among free moral agents (beings with free will).
I think that should be clear by now. There is no epistemic contradiction in God’s authority over life and death.
It would probably be helpful if we stepped away from the discussion of Christianity specifically, because I don’t think your assertions regarding Christianity are correct. I am not aware of any particular “definition” of Christianity included in the Bible; it seems to me that a reasonable one (though one not likely to survive heavy scrutiny) would be “one who follows Christ.” The issue of whether the decision to become Christian is made freely or not is separate from the definition of “Christian” itself. They are not the same thing.
Further, you continue to confuse that which God can do and that which God must do. God “cannot” make people Christian only if He desires them to become Christian of their own free will; if He didn’t care about that, He obviously could (and presumably would) make everyone Christian. So the issue of choosing to follow Christ is distinct from the definition of Christian. A Christian is a follower of Christ – compelled or not. The issue of whether the Christian is compelled or not only arises when one moves beyond the definition to ask why God does not make everyone Christian.
The phrase “God cannot” does not impact God’s omnipotence one way or the other, because it denotes a logical limitation on language, not a limitation on His power. If God wants people to love Him of their own free will (and I submit He does), then He “cannot” compel them to love Him, because that defeats His own desire. Similarly, He “cannot” make a square circle, or make up down, or make inside outside. It is the defintions of those terms that does not allow it, which has nothing to do with the power of God.
No. It is meaninless to talk about God compelling people to love Him freely. Why? Because that is an impossibility. If He compels them, they do not love Him freely. This has nothing to do with wanting them to be Christian, or not. Not only can He do this without infringing on their (our) free will, He must do it without infringing on our free will. Because otherwise the love is not free, and the goal is love freely given. You have yet to explain how you think God could compel people to love Him freely.
I don’t believe this, and I don’t believe the Bible says this. The Bible isn’t clear as to why God made humanity – though we have the story of how He did it (fashioning a man from clay, fashioning a woman from man), there’s no explanation as to why. Regardless of why He created us, I believe what He asks of us now is to love Him, and to love each other – and everything that flows from that. And I believe He wants us to choose to do those things freely. So far as Christianity is concerned, it is my belief that God through Christ provided a new means to come to Him, to know Him and to love Him. And certainly He welcomes those who avail themselves of that invitation. But I do not believe Christianity is the only way to come to know or love God; as Buddhists are fond of saying, there are many paths up the mountain.
I don’t know, but I also don’t see what one thing has to do with the other – i.e., how you are concluding that if God does not want every person to be Christian, then no reason exists to create humanity at all.
Well, no. First, the “second coming” and “heaven” are not the same thing. The “secon coming” refers to the return of Christ to earth and the judging of all mankind in the wake of that. Y’know – Revelations time. “Heaven” is – well, whatever you think heaven is. Second, it is a fundamentalist Christian belief that only born again Christians will be admitted to heaven. This is not a mainstream Christian belief. For most moderate or liberal Christians, the idea of a fiery roasting hell eternally tormenting the vast majority of humanity – that’s a concept totally irreconcilable with the idea of a just and loving God. Third, those who go to heaven (wherever and whatever that may be) assumably will already have exercised their free will to have done whatever it was they needed to do to get there. So yes, we can theorize a heaven full of free-willed people (unless we theorize a heaven full of sheep). Whether they will all be Christian or not depends on who you ask. I devoutly hope they will not all be.
You continue to confuse definional restrictions with restrictions on God. Think of it this way: Can an all-powerful God do the impossible? Recall that we define “impossible” as “that which cannot be done.” So can He do that which cannot be done? We cannot answer “no,” because if He can’t, then He’s not all-powerful and we have changed the question. We cannot answer “yes,” because if He can, then the thing (whatever it was) was not really impossible (but was in fact possible), and again we have changed the question. Do you see the problem? The problem is with the question, in that it does not admit of an answer. It has nothing whatsoever to do with God and what He “can” or “cannot” do. No one but you is theorizing a “restricted” God. We are simply recognizing the limitations on language and thought that do not allow us to theorize the existence of things that definitionally cannot exist. None of which has anything to do with death or the second coming, so I’m not sure what you’re talking about there.
This is the question I’m interested in: how did the set of all things become divided into subsets of things that can be done and things that can’t be done, if not through God?
Why would you think the possible and the impossible were ever part of the same set? Ideas that make sense and ideas that make no sense are not (were never) part of a larger set; they have nothing in common, not even existence.
1a) The Frog King’s argument has a similar structure to “the Problem of evil.” As Lewis put it, "If God were good, He would wish to make his creatures perfectly happy and if God were almighty He would be able to do what He wished. But the creatures are not happy. Therefore, God lacks either goodness, or power, or both. "
b) Nonetheless, many posters have pointed out that the Christian Deity wants his children to choose Christianity freely. The question then arises why the Deity didn’t simply create entities who had that combination of supernatural perception, rationality and spirituality such that they would all (unanimously, but freely) choose G-d and Christ.
Possible Answer 1: Don’t worry, they will in the afterlife.
Possible Answer 2: It must remain a mystery to us munchkins. (IANAE in world creation. )
There are other possible answers as well.
c) Somehow though, the fact that the Benevolent One didn’t arrange everyone’s church attendance ahead of time pains me less than the way S/He permits the existence of evil. Or at least certain observable cases of it.
DGoF (IMHO) should provide the scriptural backing for his statements. For example, this agnostic is unaware of the Biblical foundation for G-d’s alleged omnipotence. I trust that it exists, but a quote would help me see what sort of omnipotence is asserted. Some of his other assertions are more controversial.
Later on, DGoF touches on the issue of whether the supreme Deity is restrained by logic or whether the Deity could have created a universe with different logical rules (or whether the Deity could break logical rules in His universe). IIRC, St. Aquinas chose the first option.
Separately, IMHO, DGoF is not a troll. The questions he poses are variants of old ones.
So what if you were the only human? Then by definition everything you did would be the only path. Therefore you have no free will? I am not the one who is confusing prediction and compulsion. Yes, god could create people who would freely choose him. Yes, he would know that they would freely choose him. But it is still a choice. God knows everything, but that does not mean he is compelling everything.
This is simply not true… you do not have to take away all other choices in order to “know” what choice you will make. All you would have to do is be able to see the future. For instance, if I travelled forward in time and saw you pick up the dollar, then travelled back, I would “know” that you would pick it up. But did I take away all other choices? Of course not. You have not once explained why you think foreknowledge of an event constitutes compelling that event to happen, just as you have not explained the difference between a person who freely chooses god in this world, and a person who freely chooses god in a world where those who would not choose him do not exist.
You are the one who keeps talking about god compelling people to do things. My example was clearly about indirect causation. If you leave your door unlocked, and look into a crystal ball and see that your house is robbed because of this, then you have indirectly caused the criminal to choose your house to rob. You did not take away all other choices. Now, if you were omnipotent and could see into all possible futures, you could indirectly cause almost anything to happen. As for a person who would still not choose god despite persuasion and god’s “mysterious ways”, well that person would never have been created. You seem to think that that person existed somewhere before god created them. Where? Nothing exists that god did not create, and god knew what would happen to all his creations. And yet free will exists, though god knows the path we will take.
I am not agreeing with frog god’s argument. In fact, I completely disagree with it. I am only disagreeing with your argument that if we were all christians we would not have free will. Just because god knew we would be christians does not mean he compelled it.
So what is my response to the OP? Why are we not all christians?
There must be some reason why we are as we are. God could easily have created a human race which would freely choose him. It is not a question of free will. But there are other things about us that make us less likely to choose god. These other things, in fact everything about us, must exist for a reason. I do not know why god created us as we are, I can only trust that there is a reason.
There must be something more important than self identifying as a christian. We could easily, through god’s indirect causation, identify ourselves as christians. So why don’t we? Because that is not the most valuable thing! In fact as you and Lib have both mentioned, a non christian who loves his fellow man is following god. Because however you treat other people, so you are treating god. Do good, love, and you will be saved. That, along with my first reason, is why we are not all christians, and why that fact in no way disproves god or the bible.
Divisions and limitations are properties of of the world and language, not God. Asking God to create a real number solution to the square root of -1 is like asking God to shumpf umpobble acknar. A scientist (or any student of knowledge) must be careful how he defines his sets. Is there any mystery left in this for you?
Saying that God “can or cannot do” something is a metaphorical device, along the lines of other metaphors about technical, philosophical, or scientific matters. For example, when a hydrologist says that water “seeks” its own level, he does not really mean that water engages in any kind of deliberation whatsoever. He is speaking metaphorically of the nature of water as a fluid in relation to gravity.
What God “cannot do” are things where the word “do” do not apply. God “cannot” divide by zero, not because He is powerless to do so, but because there is no meaning in the concept. It can be shown easily, by modal tableau, that what God does do is the set of all things that are done perfectly. In reality, there is nothing that He cannot do; there merely are things such that “doing” them is meaningless.
On the matter of free will, consider the definition of praxis given by Ludwig von Mises, the famous free-market economist. A praxis is a deliberate action or inaction made volitionally in a context of freedom. Thus, if God decides that man should have free will, then His inaction — that is, His refusal to interfere in the moral decisions of man — is deliberately and freely made, and thus is a praxis. It is a mistake (of logic, in fact, an ignoratio elenchi) to conclude that because God makes one decision over another, He is powerless to make the one He does not make.
Remember that the limitations placed on what God can do are indemic, not to Him, but to language. We may, if we insist, allow that He can make a circle such that not all points on the circle’s circumference are equidistant from the center. But all we have done in that case is change the definition of circle. If we wish to have definitions, and speak so that words make sense, then things that are doable are things that fall within the domain of meaningfulness.
As I recall, you asked for evidence from the bible in your OP. A standard view of what is a Christian is one who accepts Christ. I provided a few quotes that indicate that all of us will at some point, even beyond the grave come to accept Christ. God’s love for his children will not allow for one to be lost. How can that possibly offend you ?
I seem to recall reading that there are branches of mathematics (toplogy?) that concern themselves with (among many other things) whether the area of a circle can be cut into finite pieces and reassembled as a complete square.
I really won’t be terribly surprised to learn that somewhere, there is a team of academics tirelessly working to prove that black is the same as white*.
*[sup]The Douglas Adams reference is implied, no need to quote it)[/sup]
No true. Why would that follow? Whether or not I am the only human has nothing to do with whether or not the universe of possible choices has been narrowed to one.
The difference is that if God creates only people He knows in advance will do a given thing, they cannot be said to have chosen that thing. The crucial point is that the universe of possible choices is reduced to one (which is definitionally not a choice) – and that is what happens when you posit God that not only foresees one result but brings about that one result by only creating people who will do the one given thing. If you really have no choice but to do one thing (because your doing of that one thing is a foregone conclusion and you cannot do otherwise, because if you would do otherwise, you would not have been created), then that is no choice.
You are leaving out the crucial point that God does not simply see the result and lives with it, but forces the result by failing to create any possibility of any other result. A foregone conclusion is not consistent with choice. It’s as if I was walking on a literal path, and trying to get off it, and every exit except one is blocked. You would therefore apparently say I “chose” the only available exit.
Because you have only foreseen the future, you have not created that particular future by creating a situation in which the result you want is the only possible result. If you created me to pick up the dollar, and gave me no choice but to do so (because if I chose to do otherwise, you would not have created me), then I have no choice in the matter.
It is not mere foreknowledge that constitutes compulsion; it is foreknowledge coupled with the exercise of the ability to reduce the available choices down to one. If I lock you in a room with many doors, only one of which is unlocked, and put in your the compulsion to leave, and so you go through the unlocked door, did you “choose” to go through that door? No. The key is not knowing the result, but obtaining the result, by removing the chance of any other result.
Obviously you have not. Leaving my house open doesn’t cause a free-willed person to rob it. Taken the roof off doesn’t do that. Posting a sign outside that says “ROBBERS STOP HERE!” doesn’t do it. And foreknowing it will be robbed (by going through time and seeing it) doesn’t cause it. It is when you have eliminated every other choice but robbing it (by creating only people who will rob it) that you have caused it to be robbed. So again, it is not merely foreknowledge; it is foreknowledge coupled with the exercise of power to reduce the universe of choices down to one.
To the contrary, it is you who apparently theorize such an existence, by talking about a person who “would not still chooose god despite persuasiion and ‘mysterious ways,’” as if that hypothetical person was in some way given that choice and did not take it. Which is wrong, of course; that person never existed. You would apparently say that a person who has no choice but to do a thing (since it is foretold that they will do it since before their birth, and since they are created only to do that thing), nevertheless could choose not to do it. By your own definition, this is wrong: If they do otherwise (would ever do otherwise), they do not exist (have never existed). God created us all to breathe air by creating circumstances under which it is impossible for us to do otherwise, because if we did we would not exist. Would you say we choose to breathe air.
It is not merely knowledge that takes away choice; it is knowledge plus action that reduces the universe of choices to one. One choice is no choice; to “choose” you must have two viable options. Perhaps you’d like to explain how you think such people have free choice to be Christian when by definition they cannot do otherwise?
I agree with this, except the part about “God creating a race that would [all] freely choose Him.” If He creates us – all of us – to choose Him, and we have no ability to do otherwise, then we do not have free will (at least not in this matter). Again, IMO this is not theology, but rather the definition of “choice,” which implies two possible paths. For a person who is created to do only one thing and not the other, there are not two possible paths, there is only one.
I think I understand your point that, in this case, saying “God cannot” isn’t a limitation on God, but rather a fault in the language for even making it able to suggest such a possiblity.
Greenspiece: the first time you used that quote, you highlighted “under the earth”, and said “that includes you, David”. I took that as an insinuation that I was going to hell. If that wasn’t what you meant, I apologize, but I’m at a loss as to what else it might mean.
I have a question about (what I took to be) an analogy Jodi made way back: Even though I can want to eat a snickers bar (make everybody Christian), I can’t because I’m watching my weight (giving everyone free will). I’m assuming we can agree that God can eat as many snickers bars as he wants without getting fat, so does this mean, if it is your veiw that God doesn’t care whether people are Christian, that God don’t even want the snicker’s bar, regardless of the health implications? Because if that is what you think, it certainly wasn’t clear.
If God does in fact want to eat the snickers bar, however much less than he wants to keep his weight, and the only thing stopping him is gaining weight, I still think I (might) still have an argument, this time avoiding a direct contradiction. This is kind of along the lines of nighttime’s argument. It hinges on the question of whether free will an all or nothing affair, with no middle postition. It doesn’t seem to me like it is, because, while I can imagine a state with no free will, I can’t imagine a state with infinite free will (unless omnipotence qualifies, but that doesn’t include us anyway).
If we are stuck in the middle between zero and infinite amount of free will, God can keep dividing the amount of free will in half, or multiplying it by two, and will never get to either extreme. Put conversely, even for us non-omnipotent beings, there is no concievable situation where there is not an infinite amount of options, other than a total loss of free will. If nothing else, there are an infinite amount of gradations between a clenched fist and an outstretched hand, not to mention the infinite amount of things you can do with your hand. So if our options are cut in half a finite number of times, we will still have an infinite number of options, since infinity divided by two is still infinity. (I hope this doesn’t lead the discussion too far into math I don’t understand.)
This relates to the real world, because if God wanted everybody to be Christian without taking away their free will, He could do it without contradiction by successively making it twice as hard not to be a Christian until everyone does become Christian. This would not take away their free will, becuase there are still an infinite amount of things people could do - i.e. put their hands into an infinite amount of positions, if nothing else, but would still make it arbitrarily (but not infinitely) hard to not be Christian.
This kind of does depend on whether or not I misunderstood the snickers analogy. If I did, it’s still interesting, but not strictly relavent.
I think you’re taking the analogy too far, certainly further than I intended. The point was only that wanting something is not necessarily inconsistent with causing the wanted thing to happen. That’s why the Snickers analogy was followed by another analogy – wanting to call someone a name but not doing it.
You’ve lost me again. The Snickers is an analogy, but not a perfect one. It is theoretically possible to eat infinite Snickers without gaining weight, if one had the power to do that. There is nothing definitionally internally inconsistent with “eating Snickers” and “not gaining weight.” Those two things may (theoretically) coexist. Contrast that to “doing the impossible,” which is a paradoxical impossibility – because if the thing can be done, it is by definition not impossible. Is that what you’re getting at? God can eat a bazillion Snickers and not gain weight – no definitional impossibility there. But God cannot do the impossible, because if it can be done, it is possible, not impossible.
I don’t think you do, because eating/gaining weight are not definitionally impossible – there is no reason those two ideas cannot occupy the same space, if you will, at the same time. Contrast that with “compelled non-compulsion,” which cannot coexist, because one definitionally excludes the other.
It obviously is not. There is a continuum of: no influence moving to influence moving to coercion moving to total control (no free will). And certainly there is an argument that God could make the choice of Christianity so attractive that most people would choose it.
The question, of course, is where on that continuum the choice being made is not made “freely” but rather due to influence (if not coercion). And I don’t pretend to know where that point is – I don’t even think it’s at the same place for every person.
Sure. Think of the continuum of “total free will moving to no free will” as a line, and certainly it can be infinitely divided, just as any other line may be. But at some point we must be talking about distinctions without difference (or differences without distinctions) – gradients of coercion or influence that are so close to one another there’s no discernable difference. I think the question here is where (at what point) influence (free will) becomes coercion (no free will), and of course I don’t know that; I don’t think anyone does. In the context of this discussion, I think the question becomes why God does not influence us to the maximum extent that He can without taking away our free will. And it seems to me a possible answer is: Maybe He does.
I’ll overlook the gross mispelling of my screen name, as I believe I did refer to you as frog god
For you to misunderstand the quote and my comment frustrates me no end, but I appreciate you letting me know.
I underlined the phrase under the earth to refer to those who have died. Peter tells us that Christ even preached to people who were under the earth, particularly those who were contemporary with Noah. I regard this extremely important, because it tells me that even though a person hasn’t been reconciled to God through Jesus Christ in this life, that person’s opportunity to do so doesn’t end there. The biblical evidence of preaching to the “dead” makes consistant the oft repeated John 3;16 and many other verses that seem to limit salvation to those who accept Christ, with those verses in the bible, a couple which I quoted that indicate universal salvation and worship.
In light of this view, I see an omnipotent God with a plan before he created the universe, to foster a human race of individuals willing to share in his glory.And if He desires that all men be saved, I take Him at his word.
Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. They kingdom come ** Thy will (desire) be done**
I trust that I have not been asked to pray in vain.
It may no be obvious to you David, but your logic in this debate is the same as mine.
I’ll overlook the gross mispelling of my screen name, as I believe I did refer to you as frog god
For you to misunderstand the quote and my comment frustrates me no end, but I appreciate you letting me know.
I underlined the phrase under the earth to refer to those who have died. Peter tells us that Christ even preached to people who were under the earth, particularly those who were contemporary with Noah. I regard this extremely important, because it tells me that even though a person hasn’t been reconciled to God through Jesus Christ in this life, that person’s opportunity to do so doesn’t end there. The biblical evidence of preaching to the “dead” makes consistant the oft repeated John 3;16 and many other verses that seem to limit salvation to those who accept Christ, with those verses in the bible, a couple which I quoted that indicate universal salvation and worship.
In light of this view, I see an omnipotent God with a plan before he created the universe, to foster a human race of individuals willing to share in his glory.And if He desires that all men be saved, I take Him at his word.
Our Father who art in Heaven, hallowed be thy name. They kingdom come ** Thy will (desire) be done**
I trust that I have not been asked to pray in vain.
It may no be obvious to you David, but your logic in this debate is the same as mine.
)
). Can’t find it in three on line dictionaries.