and of course, as usual, he insisted that his opponent hasn't made his case and Craig's arguments are unrefuted. given that his same old 5 arguments have been so thoroughly debunked, to make a straigh-face claim they stand, just reveals the extend and depth of Craig's pathology! this guy is unbelievable... he's either profoundly stupid person or profoundly dishonest. my guess is the latter
@OrdinaryClay Craig is the embodiment of intellectual dishonesty. that's a man who insists in debates that his opponent must demolish his arguments and presents good arg uments for atheism, if he's to he'd give up his faith, thus implying he'll follow the evidence where it leads.
and yet elsewhere he openly confesses that even if ALL arguments and evidence were to point against Christianity, he'd remain a Christian because the witness of the Holy Spirit trumps it all! Craig is a joke, a fraud
Craig is just pathetic. instead of answering why God couldn't create free creatures that always choose to do the right thing--just like God himself!!--Craig stated that it's highly technical and went into totally irrelevant babble (at which he's so good, being the undisputed Master of Bullshitting). and of course suggested one reads Plantinga's ignorant and absurd speculations that even many theist hard it find to take seriously
@AgeOfReasonXXI You should study more before engaging a topic. First, God is not created. Second, if you study the Euthyphro dilemma you would understand that God does not choose to be good. God is good.
@OrdinaryClay the Euthyphro dilemma: either something is God bc God has endorsed it, or it's endorsed by God bc it's good. Craig argues for the first although he denies it (since this makes morality totally arbitrary), by claiming it's a false dilemma and tries to obscure the issue by reffering to God's nature as though that somehow solves the problem! I doubt he sincerely believes that. but the main problem with his arg. is that if God didn't exist torture, rape would be fine which is absurd
If God can have first person experience of being Yahweh and Jesus at the same time, two persons who talked to each other, why not first person experience of people other than Jesus? Like me, or Napoleon? Or every possible experience of every possible person?
God knows all true propositions. God as a trinity is a true proposition(God is Jesus, etc ...). God is not, in fact, Napoleon so that is not a true proposition. The point is that "knowing" something as true that is not true would be incoherent and hence not part of God's omniscience.
Knowing something as incoherent or possibly incoherent is knowable. Knowing an incoherence is not possible. Just like it is not possible to know a married bachelor.
The set of true propositions is necessary for omniscience but not sufficient, but this is irrelevant since God knowing He is Napoleon is incoherent and not knowable by any sentient mind including an omniscient one, as explained by Dr Craig in the video.
Oops! Ok, now that you have conceded that an Omniscience would know more than a list of true propositions, i have to ask what that might be? His own first person experience, maybe? Hmmm?
Yes, God knows His own first person experience. He does not know Napoleon's first person experience. He knows every thing Napoleon did, but He does not know being Napoleon. That is the point.
Ohoh! So God knows his own first person experience of his own free choices huh?
Was there ever a time at which he did not? What i am asking is, was he Omniscient before making some free choice, or did he have to make the choice in order to know that experience? Ooops! Yeah, i thought so. You haven't thought this out have you?
You have changed the subject as per your original comment. God can not know being Napoleon because to do so would be incoherent. Okay, now on to your next question regarding whether God's omniscience is compatible with His free will. God is timeless so the notion of temporal sequence is not relevant. Maybe you want to rephrase your question.
You know Mr. Clay, you don't get to redefine your God to suit your argument. You admitted one thing to get out of one position, now you are stuck with it. I can raise as many issues as i want, you don't get to change definitions of God from question to question.
My whole point, from the very beginning is that you either have to say that your God is something less than Omniscient or you have to contradict yourself in order to deal with the many objections. That being said, i'll continue..
If you God knows all possibly knowable knowledge, and he has freewill, then it is possibly knowable his experience of having created this Universe, and every experience proceeding it. That would include the knowing of the whole history of this Universe, down to it's infinitesimally smallest detail. That has serious implications, that i will get to later.
If creating this singular history of this Universe, was a free choice, that would mean that he could have chosen otherwise. If he could have chosen otherwise, say to create a different Universe, then it is possibly knowable his experience of doing so. He would by definition of being Omniscient, know that experience as well as it could ever be known. Count..
The real problem is that there could never have been a time prior to having this knowledge. If God is an Eternal Omniscience, then, for all Eternity these experiences would be known as well as they could ever have been known.
There could have never been a new experience for God, and his experiences would include all logically possible experiences. By the fact that if he is free to perform any action, it follows inescapably that it is possibly knowable he experience of performing it. Count..
It follows that he knows the reality of instantiating all possible Universes into actuality. He would know all worlds as being real. There could never have been a time prior to his knowing every logically possible world and one of these worlds would be this one, with you and i here arguing. It would be impossible for us to know weather we are in the world that he "actually created" or if we are one of the infinite number of worlds that he knows in infinite detail of having created. Count..
An Omniscience would be a far greater conceivable being than you have yet bothered to conceive of. You haven't bothered because you grew up on stories of your Yahweh dude, changing his mind, having wrestling matches, bartering or cities, showing his ass, walking with people, and all sorts of anthropomorphic acts more suitable to gods of ancient times, and you have to try to fit it all in with modern sophisticated conceptions of deity. God doesn't fit in your Bible.
If god could only create this universe, what then is heaven supposed to be? Either heaven is a universe/state that exists and there is a better alternative and we've been stuffed in the bad one or world is as good as it gets and there is no heaven...
heaven in christianity is not a metaphysical world, but only part of a metaphyical world. A metaphysical world that purely consists of heaven alone would be a logically impossible world due to human free will and other problems. So heaven is only feasible can only exist if a universe precedes it.
You speak with the sincerity and confidence of someone who knows what s/he is talking about. Almost enough for me to accept it without question. But I was taught to question everything - so I do - sorry, but here goes...
How *do* you know that? How can you possibly know the physical and metaphysical properties of a 'heaven'? The best scientists in the world can't even explain much of what we can see in this world so how is it you know about heaven? What is the evidence that you hint at?
I was merely explaining the christian concept to you and Im not a christian so I have no interest in defending it. I merely pointed out the christian concept as to why God didnt actualize only heaven instead of this world.
and of course, as usual, he insisted that his opponent hasn't made his case and Craig's arguments are unrefuted. given that his same old 5 arguments have been so thoroughly debunked, to make a straigh-face claim they stand, just reveals the extend and depth of Craig's pathology! this guy is unbelievable... he's either profoundly stupid person or profoundly dishonest. my guess is the latter
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI Craig's informed opponents, while maybe not agreeing with his conclusions, admit he is intelligent and honest in his beliefs.
OrdinaryClay 1 year ago
@OrdinaryClay Craig is the embodiment of intellectual dishonesty. that's a man who insists in debates that his opponent must demolish his arguments and presents good arg uments for atheism, if he's to he'd give up his faith, thus implying he'll follow the evidence where it leads.
and yet elsewhere he openly confesses that even if ALL arguments and evidence were to point against Christianity, he'd remain a Christian because the witness of the Holy Spirit trumps it all! Craig is a joke, a fraud
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
Craig is just pathetic. instead of answering why God couldn't create free creatures that always choose to do the right thing--just like God himself!!--Craig stated that it's highly technical and went into totally irrelevant babble (at which he's so good, being the undisputed Master of Bullshitting). and of course suggested one reads Plantinga's ignorant and absurd speculations that even many theist hard it find to take seriously
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
@AgeOfReasonXXI You should study more before engaging a topic. First, God is not created. Second, if you study the Euthyphro dilemma you would understand that God does not choose to be good. God is good.
OrdinaryClay 1 year ago
@OrdinaryClay the Euthyphro dilemma: either something is God bc God has endorsed it, or it's endorsed by God bc it's good. Craig argues for the first although he denies it (since this makes morality totally arbitrary), by claiming it's a false dilemma and tries to obscure the issue by reffering to God's nature as though that somehow solves the problem! I doubt he sincerely believes that. but the main problem with his arg. is that if God didn't exist torture, rape would be fine which is absurd
AgeOfReasonXXI 1 year ago
If God can have first person experience of being Yahweh and Jesus at the same time, two persons who talked to each other, why not first person experience of people other than Jesus? Like me, or Napoleon? Or every possible experience of every possible person?
Scientialist 2 years ago
God knows all true propositions. God as a trinity is a true proposition(God is Jesus, etc ...). God is not, in fact, Napoleon so that is not a true proposition. The point is that "knowing" something as true that is not true would be incoherent and hence not part of God's omniscience.
OrdinaryClay 2 years ago
An Omniscience would know all possibly knowable knowledge, and know it as well as it could ever been known. Anything less is not Omniscience.
Scientialist 1 year ago
Knowing something as incoherent or possibly incoherent is knowable. Knowing an incoherence is not possible. Just like it is not possible to know a married bachelor.
OrdinaryClay 1 year ago
What do you think i meant by "possibly knowable knowledge"?
My point, was that a list of true propositions is not Omniscience.
Scientialist 1 year ago
The set of true propositions is necessary for omniscience but not sufficient, but this is irrelevant since God knowing He is Napoleon is incoherent and not knowable by any sentient mind including an omniscient one, as explained by Dr Craig in the video.
OrdinaryClay 1 year ago
Oops! Ok, now that you have conceded that an Omniscience would know more than a list of true propositions, i have to ask what that might be? His own first person experience, maybe? Hmmm?
Scientialist 1 year ago
Yes, God knows His own first person experience. He does not know Napoleon's first person experience. He knows every thing Napoleon did, but He does not know being Napoleon. That is the point.
OrdinaryClay 1 year ago
Ohoh! So God knows his own first person experience of his own free choices huh?
Was there ever a time at which he did not? What i am asking is, was he Omniscient before making some free choice, or did he have to make the choice in order to know that experience? Ooops! Yeah, i thought so. You haven't thought this out have you?
Scientialist 1 year ago
You have changed the subject as per your original comment. God can not know being Napoleon because to do so would be incoherent. Okay, now on to your next question regarding whether God's omniscience is compatible with His free will. God is timeless so the notion of temporal sequence is not relevant. Maybe you want to rephrase your question.
OrdinaryClay 1 year ago
You know Mr. Clay, you don't get to redefine your God to suit your argument. You admitted one thing to get out of one position, now you are stuck with it. I can raise as many issues as i want, you don't get to change definitions of God from question to question.
My whole point, from the very beginning is that you either have to say that your God is something less than Omniscient or you have to contradict yourself in order to deal with the many objections. That being said, i'll continue..
Scientialist 1 year ago
If you God knows all possibly knowable knowledge, and he has freewill, then it is possibly knowable his experience of having created this Universe, and every experience proceeding it. That would include the knowing of the whole history of this Universe, down to it's infinitesimally smallest detail. That has serious implications, that i will get to later.
count..
Scientialist 1 year ago
If creating this singular history of this Universe, was a free choice, that would mean that he could have chosen otherwise. If he could have chosen otherwise, say to create a different Universe, then it is possibly knowable his experience of doing so. He would by definition of being Omniscient, know that experience as well as it could ever be known. Count..
Scientialist 1 year ago
The real problem is that there could never have been a time prior to having this knowledge. If God is an Eternal Omniscience, then, for all Eternity these experiences would be known as well as they could ever have been known.
There could have never been a new experience for God, and his experiences would include all logically possible experiences. By the fact that if he is free to perform any action, it follows inescapably that it is possibly knowable he experience of performing it. Count..
Scientialist 1 year ago
It follows that he knows the reality of instantiating all possible Universes into actuality. He would know all worlds as being real. There could never have been a time prior to his knowing every logically possible world and one of these worlds would be this one, with you and i here arguing. It would be impossible for us to know weather we are in the world that he "actually created" or if we are one of the infinite number of worlds that he knows in infinite detail of having created. Count..
Scientialist 1 year ago
An Omniscience would be a far greater conceivable being than you have yet bothered to conceive of. You haven't bothered because you grew up on stories of your Yahweh dude, changing his mind, having wrestling matches, bartering or cities, showing his ass, walking with people, and all sorts of anthropomorphic acts more suitable to gods of ancient times, and you have to try to fit it all in with modern sophisticated conceptions of deity. God doesn't fit in your Bible.
Scientialist 1 year ago
@OrdinaryClay why can God not know "being Napoleon"?
hexusziggurat 1 year ago
If god could only create this universe, what then is heaven supposed to be? Either heaven is a universe/state that exists and there is a better alternative and we've been stuffed in the bad one or world is as good as it gets and there is no heaven...
Kwhit99 2 years ago
@Kwhit99
heaven in christianity is not a metaphysical world, but only part of a metaphyical world. A metaphysical world that purely consists of heaven alone would be a logically impossible world due to human free will and other problems. So heaven is only feasible can only exist if a universe precedes it.
KnownNoMore 2 years ago
You speak with the sincerity and confidence of someone who knows what s/he is talking about. Almost enough for me to accept it without question. But I was taught to question everything - so I do - sorry, but here goes...
How *do* you know that? How can you possibly know the physical and metaphysical properties of a 'heaven'? The best scientists in the world can't even explain much of what we can see in this world so how is it you know about heaven? What is the evidence that you hint at?
keithwhittingham 2 years ago
@keithwhittingham
I was merely explaining the christian concept to you and Im not a christian so I have no interest in defending it. I merely pointed out the christian concept as to why God didnt actualize only heaven instead of this world.
KnownNoMore 2 years ago
OK, you're forgiven ;-)
keithwhittingham 2 years ago
Dr. WLC can presents excellent arguments for theism. I have not seen him challenged yet.
MMonreal 2 years ago 2