Knowledge of a situation does not make someone responsible for the situation (i.e. the commission or perpetration of the act). You have failed to take into consideration that every person has a free will (that means that every action that they commit was decided by them personally and volitionally--not God). For example, God knew that you would be on this forum today is God responsible for what you write? No? But I thought that you said that God is responsible for every action of man because He knows and sees all? Question: have you ever told someone that you were going to do something and then did it? Who was responsible for doing what you said that you were going to do, the people who you told (i.e. those who had knowledge about your intentions) or you (i.e. the one who actually performed the act)?
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
Having absolute proof that someone will do something and doing nothing about it makes you responsible for the action. For you example God knows that I will be on the forum today and he already knows what I will write even before I did for he has already seen it. The term free will only applies to other humans and not to God because as it is stated God is all knowing and all seeing and is at the beginning and end of all things. This in turns means that he already know what everyone will do through the entire life of the universe so even before he created everything he knew that Hitler would come to power and be responsible for killing millions of lives.
If I said that I was going to kill someone and you knew for a fact that I would and you did nothing to prevent it, you would be responsible for my action just as much as I would be.
You are applying man-made law to God. God is has not been, is not now, nor will He ever be subject to man-made law. All human authority comes from God. Societies all over this planet create laws that violate God's Law (God's Word is His law). One day God will judge the world based on His Word--which is the true, supreme law of the land. Our laws should be subservient to God's laws, not the converse. God's sovereignty is absolute. He is running things, and it is to Him that every person will ultimately give an account for the lives that they have lived, the things that they have done, said, and thought (not the other way around). You cannot win with God. I assure you ThePittman that your assessment of God's liability with regard to humanity's actions is false. Your premise is in essence attempting to degrade God and lower Him to the level of human accountability and laws, but He transcends human law. God reserves the right to rescind human law at His whim. This is God's universe and earth, and humanity is God's product; therefore, He is the one making all the rules.
In this society and according to its laws I would be held liable for what you do in some instances, but we are not talking about me here--we are talking about God. God is never wrong or unjust. Just because you fail to understand the dynamics of free will and its ramifications (with great power comes great responsibility) does not mean that God is responsible for what you do. Free will (i.e. volition) is a "power" if you will. Unlike animals human will is not governed by instinct, it is governed by conscience. So not only has God given you a free will but He has also incorporated a mechanism called conscience in conjunction with it to help you to make the right decisions.
God will not answer to you ThePittman for why you did thus and so. In fact, God will not answer to anyone for their actions--we will answer to God for our actions. Your case for why God is liable for humanity's sin problem has no leg to stand on. There is divine law and there is human law. Divine law supersedes human law.
For example, human law states that there is nothing wrong with being a homosexual, practicing the homosexual lifestyle, same-sex marriage, etc. But divine law (God's Word) clearly forbids the homosexual practice and same-sex marriage. What do you think God will do on that Day when He judges the world for their sins? Do you believe that God will implicate Himself in His findings, rulings, or judgment against humanity for their sins because He knew what they were going to do? Do you think that God will accept blame for your actions on that dreadful day? The answer is no because God is holy, righteous, and just. God is the Judge, and in a courtroom setting the judge is never the defendant. Stop and think about it: when was the last time that you saw someone go before a judge and the judge stepped down out of his/her judgment seat to answer for his/her actions? This is unheard of. There has never been a time that a judge who was the presiding officer of the court during a trial has ever had to answer for his/her personal actions. God is above the law in the sense that He is the Lawmaker and is incapable of violating His own law. So, I said all that to say this: the proposition that God is responsible for what we do because He knew we were going to do it is exploded.
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
Hold on there, I'm not talking about law of man, you brought that up. Only God knows that you will do what you will do because he has already seen it, there is no free will to him because he already knows your choice. He already knows what Adam was going to do before he created him and he will know what every man, woman and child and every choice they will ever make before they do and even before they are born so how could he not be responsible for every good and evil action committed by man? If he doesn't then he is not all knowing and all seeing so then he is not God, understand? If he does than he is not the benevolent, all loving one and likes to see people suffer in other words one sick SOB and you wonder why people have a problem believing that his is love?
What God knows is irrelevant and immaterial because it does not impact your free will in any way. Besides, God does not judge you on what He knows, He judges you on what you do as your life is lived from birth to death. God does not violate your free will as such, but He does reserve the right to intervene in the affairs of His creation (i.e. humanity) arbitrarily.
You have answered your own question. You asked how could God not be responsible for every action committed by man. God is not responsible for what you do period. God's love is demonstrated in the fact that He will not infringe on your free will (again, as such). God gives you the power of choice and permits you to exercise it even to the detriment of others. Free will (i.e. volition) is an awesome responsibility and it should be exercised wisely. God could have made us like the swallows or other migratory birds that fly south for the winter instinctively or like salmon who swim upstream, spawn their eggs and die--all by instinct. But He didn't. Unlike the animal kingdom our wills are not governed by instinct, but by conscience to help us make the "right," "morally sound" decision between two alternatives.
There are people that have all kinds of problems including believing that their own friends, significant other, children, family, or spouse loves them. This is nothing unusual.
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
You keep missing the point, God is going to judge you on how you live your life but he would already know even before you are born how you will already do it. He will already know if you will believe in him and if you don't even before you are born. Man has free will because he is not all knowing, they do not know what will happen in the future but God already does. He will know every action and reaction that you will have throughout your life. In the eyes of God when you are born you are already preordain if you are going to heaven or not because God has already seen your entire life.
I understand your point so how could I be missing it? I am telling you that what God knows is irrelevant as far as you are concerned because you still have a free will. You can make decisions throughout the course of your life that will determine your destiny in the hereafter. Why do you keep bringing what God knows into the discussion anyway? What is the point? We are not talking about God we are talking about you. For example, if you choose to go to Heaven when you are the one who must make that decision--not God (God doesn't have anything to do with whether you go to Heaven or not). But if you decided not to go to Heaven when you die then by default you have elected to go to Hell (again, God doesn't have a thing to do with where you end up because he left that up to you).
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
This makes all the difference in the world because it would be God that is judging us. Yes we as humans have free will so what does that matter unless we are being judge by other humans. Since God knows all what is the point of judging us if he already knows, he knows everything even before we are born so what is the point of judging us? You do keep missing the point big time. I could make 50 billion changes to my life but God will always know what my very last decision will be because he has already seen it even before I was born.
every argument given is a stubborn retsating of all ur old STATEMENTS which my post was ADDRESSING in the first place. it does not in any way COUNTER the arguments posted at ALL.
the only ones worthy{heardly but atleast theyr coherent joining of phrases which can syntactically be called a reply} are these
"Not lying does not negate God’s omnipotence. God is still Almighty (i.e. All-powerful). God by nature is sinless, holy, righteous, just, and good, which presupposes that God is not sinful, unholy, unrighteous, unjust, or evil. This is not a limitation but a reality. There is no intrinsic value in being able to lie anyway because it is deceptive, dishonest, uncaring, and just plain evil. Why should God be able to do something evil as lying to somehow authenticate or validate His omnipotence? Your logic is nonsensical. The whole, “God can’t lie so then He is not All-powerful” argument is the worst argument that I have heard on this forum to date. That is like saying that a parent does not love their child because they cannot afford to send them to private school, or buy them everything that they want for Christmas, or spend every waking moment with them, or solve all of their homework problems, or feed them their favorite foods all the time, or love them any more than they love them now. Really, leonheartmm, your right maybe we should stop corresponding."
this "worst" argument has been around from millinia, it explains the paradoxical nature of OMNIPOTENCE itself. its been used by nietche, aristotle, kant, hegel, marx, bertrand russel, john dewey, richard dawkins, einstien, stephen hawkins, pythagoras, noam chomsky and many many MANY other of the greatest thinkers in history, so dont discount it as being fallacious and/or baseless. many other such arguments go sumthin like this. : if god is ALL powerful then can he create sumthin that isnt MORE powerful than himself? however since he CAN DO ANYTHING , if he creates such a being, then there will be a being more powerful than himself, and he wont be ALL powerful. if god can o anything than can he create a stone so heavy that he cant lift it himself? if he CANT then hes not omnipotent{same goes for his creating a being thats more powerful than himself, if he cant hes not omnipotent} if he CAN then he wont BE omnipotent as there exists a rock which he CANT lif. similarly, if god can do ANYTHING{definition of omnipotence} then can he sin/lie/be cruel? if he CANT then hes not omnipotent, if he CAN then and only then is he omnipotent. same goes for NATURE. if god has an UNDERLYING nature which CONFINES his actions or GUIDES his hand in ANY way then hes NOT omnipotemt as he CANT do sumthing opposing his own nature and hence hes confined.
also this argument goes in another way. if god is COMPLETE in himself, and neither needs nor wants ANYTHING{as both need and want outside onesself NULLS omnipotence} then why did he CREATE a world OUTSIDE himself? if he didnt desire it and assuming he is omnipotent and no1 else had the power to move his hand in creation and only personal NEED or DESIRE cud have MOTIVATED him to create a world that is not HIMSELF or part of HIMSELF{and all three, motivation/desire/need can not be found in an omnipotent being}. also if he created us than he created sumthing other than himself that exists and is capable of taking action OUTSIDE his direct control{humans ATLEAST if u dont believe the universe as u DO believe fallaciously in free will} and that by its very nature DENIES his omnipotence because at any time there are things which are NOT under his direct control.
as far as omniscience goes if god is ALL powerful then NUTHING shud be bale to motivate his actions other than himelf. yet if he is OMNISCIENT then he ALREADY knows all actions HE is going to take putting RESTRICTIONS on him, taking away his OMNIPOTENCE as he does not have the power to do ANYTHING OTHER than these acts and if infact he DOES have the power to do anything other than these acts, then he isnt omniscient as he does not know EVERYTHING that he himself does. in so far as free will goes. IF god is omniscient, then he KNOWS WITHOUT A SHADOW OF A DOUBT what we are going to do therefore putting RESTRICTIONS upon us. now u believe that, and yet u believe that he isnt the CAUSE of those actions. ill disprove this/ let us first agree on the fact that he KNOWS what we are going to do, the knowledge is present and exists. if he wasnt the CREATOR/causative factor, of this knowledge then immedietly it implies that the existance of the knowledge {the CERTAINTY OF ITS EXISTANCE} IS SANCTIONED by a higher being and authority than god himself, nulling his omnipotence. then the higher being is responsible for all known future acts. the fact is that logically, an undeniable single futute existance can only exist due to it being MADE and humans neither know nor make it, so some higher being does, if that higher authority isnt god, then its sum1 even higher, so any way iu look at it, if god is omniscient, then theres NO SUCH THING AS FREE WILL. n if u deny that then its U who dont understand the dynamics of sin and free will.
in so far as ur argument about god creating a toilet bowl goes it ONLY HOLD TRUE IF HE HAD NOT CREATED THE HUMAN WHO DRINKS FROM THE BOWL. IF GOD CREATED THE TOILET BOWL{harmful for drinking, } and then ALSO CREATED THE HUMAN BEING WITH FULL KNOWLEDGE THAT THE ONE HE CREATED{assuming its a supposedly BAD one} WILL DRINK FROM THE BOWL and then the human being drinks form the bowl THEN it is god himself who is responsible as he knew before creation of the outcome and the FREE thinking human being only BELIEVES himsefl to posess free will when he does not as free will implies NO CERTAINTIES IN THE FUTURE and since omniscience IS all about certainties in the future the two can not exist together. also NO HUMAN BEING{except very very few sadistical/disturbed ones who dont know what its actually like , and dont know what it means for them} wants to GO TO HELL. there are beings who WILLINGLY DENY GOD but NOT BEINGS whod WILLINGLY GO TO HELL. these are two distinctly seperate things. if sum1 doesnt believe in god willingly most DEFINATELY doesnt imply that he willingly WANTS to go to hell as u fallaciously believe. it is ur GOD WHO puts all those who disbelieve in him into hell which they most DEFINATELY dont want to go to willingly. and a person although he might be free to disbelieve in god is NOT free to go to hell as it immedietly implies that he is free to go IN AND OUT OF HELL. and thats not true, people are forcibly put there by god's judgement and no1 else's. also, the exception u speak of for infants who havent been purged of the original sin is ur own creation, its not mentioned anywhere, and if it were then it wud neglect the idea of original sin as the idea implies that u are BORN A SINNER so u cant then call a newborn child INNOCENT as he does not UNDERSTAND the concept and his own sin. thats inconsistant.
these are only a few arguments which u ought to know of which completely nullify ur repeated statements{which are not in themselves, plausible arguments} and u have not replied to ANY of the many many older ones ive given and its suffice to say that u wont cause u cant due to ur faith and not biological lack of intelligence.
id also like to add that WHENEVER u or the bible gives ANY "CHARACTERISTICS" to god and even worse HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS to god, u are effectively, on the whole, or partially CONFINING him and a being who is in any way CONFINED is not omnipotent. and there is SO MUCH of these HUMAN CHARACTERISTICS coupled with just CHARACTERISTICS in the bible that a seemingly OMNIPOTENT and transcendant being is converted into a pathetic sadist and narrow minded pervert with nothing better to do than send people to hell, or judge people or get into political affairs of gaining support and changing the wolrd or causing worldwide catastrophe's and suffering just to TEST his poor creation's faith in him{EGOTISTICAL AND SELFISHNESS OF THE HIGHEST ORDER, specially when u neither need nor can get anything from the humans of any value to an omnipotent being}
I reluctantly dignify your post with a response for one reason: so that you do not think that I am ignoring you. However, your arguments are the absolute worst that I have ever read (seriously).
Why do you insist on having a discussion with me when I have told you that your arguments are nonsensical to me? I am really trying hard (first of all to decipher what you write with all of the poor grammar, spelling, punctuation, etc) to have an intelligent discourse with you but your statements are utterly illogical and senseless to me. Do you read your posts before submitting them? Do they make sense to you? Your entire train of reasoning is noticeably absent in most of what you write and yet you cannot even see it. Like I said, I have only responded to this post out of courtesy because I have no intention of restating anything that I have already stated numerous times. You can't say that I haven't tried to dialogue with you but even I have limits. Not to mention you write long, verbose posts (which I have yet to understand why) that lack sound reason, which simply exacerbates this whole situation. Are you incapable of writing what you want to write succinctly? I don't have to write a treatise every time that I reply to your posts but yet you seem to feel compelled to do so, why I will never know. It does not take me 8257 words to counter your posts.
Gender: Unspecified Location: One for the other hand
JIA, let me ask you this. What would you call a father that sends out his kid to do a task that he knows that they will not complete only to have them come back and punish them for not completing it?
oddly, my arguments are not nonsensical to myself, nor are these strictly MY arguments to begin with. as ive stated in the poast u so conveniently stated is nonsensical and missing in any train of reasoning or logic. these arguments have been around for as long as there have been knownphilosophers, in one form or another. ive given u the names of quite a few people of imminence who created, enhanced, used and/or tried to address these arguments yet ud rather avoid the post altogether.
syntactically, gramatically and linguistically{having studied each, atleast a bit at various points in life, just so u know} my post/s makes complete sense to a man with any sound knowledge of literature. albeit they may be missing in the comma department, the reason for that is that ur basically the audience of my post. and if the audience knows, understands and uses words like "verbose", "exacerbates", "succintly", "treatise" all in a single post constituting of no more than two avergae sized paragraphs, THEN my friend i get the impression{in this case mistaken as uve already stated that u dont understand my posts} that the audience or my opposition speaker, has a certain amount of grasp on the english language and can comprehend traditional english fluency without me having to put commas, hyphens, semi comas and what not after every few words{as wud be required for a school kid}. it seems that u can not, but that is not my fault as u gave me the impression through ur posts, that u cud understand it. REGUARDLESS, ur posts consist of a not very intelligent{not meant offensively} dismissal of anything previously stated and at time a simple play on words. this is easy for YOU to write, but quite hard to definitively/logically counter, linguistically as if i counter in normal language, ambiguity would almost certainly arise. that is why it is necessary to answer in the way that i do to give a reply which can not, under normally established linguistic rules{or atleast in the presence of an audience who even vaguely understands these rules} be be discredited on the basis of, lack of logic. u seem to do so with only a statement and no evidence but all that does is show your illogical side. i assure u im quite capable of normal talk, the kind ud hear in a bar or watever, but that can raise ambiguity as i stated before when dealing with people who deliberately try and misinterpret /take out of context, your statements. so if you start making logical posts urself and stop demeaning mine on hollow grounds and unintelligent world twisting, ill start talking normally. until then, u can keep DIGNIFYING my posts with replies which state that," they lack ANY AND ALL, logic/trail of though/sense."
OH YEA , u again failed to reply to a single,{among many} point that i made in the post. so ill spare u the trouble and repost it.
actually it is. as to be the strongest{in the sense , it mean in omniPOTENCE} u have to be ABLE to do all things. if there is even a SINGLE thing which u do not have the ABILITY to do then ur lacking in ability and ur ability has LIMITS{even if the limits are that through ur ABILITY[i.e able ness to do sumthing] you can NOT decrease your ABILITY} and thus is not ultimate. but why take such a vage paradoxical example. lets take the example of being evil, evil does not in any way imply WEAKNESS for an ultimate/trancendant being{it might imply weakness to ur sinfull tendencies for humans who are subject to influence by the devil in the bible, but for god it does not in any way imply weakness} if he CAN NOT be evil then he DOES NOT HAVE THE ABILITY to be evil and thus his ability is limited. there are many other such arguments like NOT BEING ABLE TO create a being more powerful than himself etc. whenever there is a NOT ABLE TO, then it means the ability is lacking and the being is not omnipotent. what it basically does is tell us the self contradictory nature of OMNIPOTENCE. the concept is not logical in any way and can not be used in logical discussions, thas the gist of it.
God is loving whether people believe in him or not. And I can't say I'm sure God truly exist. I just believe there's a greater force, which I choose to call God. Some people don't believe in God, some people seek other explanations and some people doesn't believe at all. And you know what? That's fine by me. I don't respect anyone less for being a nonbeliever or not Christian. I believe in science, humanity, love, respecting other people's decisions and doing good for others. The only reason why I choose to believe, is simply because I think there must have been a force behind the start of everything. I might be wrong. I might be right. I don't think there's a wrong or a right answer. And I refuse to be condemned, it's not really up to you - or me.
Regards, Yvonne
__________________ - Reader, I married him (Jane Eyre)
The happiness now, will be part of the pain then.
Teaching is an act of love.
Last edited by yvonnekarate on May 28th, 2007 at 11:39 PM
KMC Community Forums
May 8th, 2007 10:33 PM
Maybe we just think alike. 
