"Can you prove the one true God, the God of Abraham, Issac, and Jacob, the God that created this world, the God that created you and me does not exist?"
This question was posed to me recently. My response is as follows:
Actually, I believe that I can. You see, while most ambiguous deist god concepts can't be disproven because of their elusive nature. Such specific god concepts can infact be disproven.
(I feel it is important to note here that the person who posed this question did indeed ascribe the traits listed below that I'll call "omnimax" to his version of the christian god "Yahweh". I understand that this may not be the case in everyones version of Yahweh.)
I'll start with free will because this is the biggest hurdle most have in understanding the flaw of the omnimax (omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent) creator concept.
(please note I will from time to time be conceding these points for the sake of debate.)
So lets ask the question, is free will compatible with an omnimax creator deity?
My answer, "it doesn't matter, because free will is an illusion."
To understand where I'm coming from, lets go over a few things.
Yahweh (the god in question) is an omnimax creator deity.
He knows all things, and he has the power to do anything. (has infinite options)
He is also, let's not forget, the creator of all things.
That being said, free will is basically free decision making. Which it seems very much that we have. We are free to chose to drink Coke or Pepsi, to run or walk, to "sin" or not to "sin". But what factors go into the decision making process that we use to make these decisions? There are two.
1.) genetics (traits that we inherit from our parents)
2.) environment (the sum of all our experiences and influences up to the point of the decision in question)
Yahweh, had infinite options when creating this world, he could've created it in absolutely any way he pleased. He also had all knowledge of every possible outcome of his infinite choices. He chose this version.
If Yahweh is real, we can not supprise him. Before he said "let there be light" he knew that I would be typing these very words on this very day. He created a world in such a way that my genetics (which he created) and my environment (which he also created) would eventually lead to me deciding to type these words.
In summation:
p1.) Yahweh had infinite options when creating the universe
p2.) Yahweh knew every decision that would ever be made in every posible version of his creation
p3.) Yahweh chose to create this universe, in which the people would make the decisions that he knew they would choose when he decided to create the universe this way.
c.) people are only free to choose what Yahweh knew they would choose when he decided to create the universe this way.
To be continued ...
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Were in the bible does it say all that omnimax etc.
it doesn't say "omnimax" in the bible. it does however say that god is all knowing, all powerful, and all good, which is what i mean by omnimax, it simply saves keystrokes.
Hmm, interesting argument. Well considered. My intention is not to refute this collaboration, just simply a question that may lead to an extensive thought.
So your saying that free will is an illusion made by the whole nature & Nurture aspect for the very reason that Yahweh had the potential Power & the knowledge/understanding to create this 'simulation' (if you will).
My question is, if we do not have freewill... what exactly do we have?
In your opinion, should one call it 'pre-destination'--by the means of our lives somehow simmering down a path of destiny.
If so, to a sense, would you agree there may be some sort of balance between the two: Freewill and Pre-destination.
Ive had this discussion one-two-many times before and some brought a rather interesting piece to this equation:
So... we live knowing at one point or another we are going to die, yet the time in between we are able to make freely based decisions. Now what do i mean by free decision making? Based on what i read in your post, i have to agree that nature (genetics) and nurture (environment) shape the outcome of a thought, though in the aftermath, after both factors have taken their influence, wouldn't the ultimate decision part result from the human emotion as well (the 3rd factor). Now you may ask where does the emotion come from and find yourself at a circular argument revolving back to genetics and the environment (which make up 'experience'), though it's kind of hard to imagine that experience is the same as an 'emotion'; a feeling. The intuition that drives one after both factors have pushed their limitations is the feeling from the influences.
I do recognize this consideration may sound a bit deep and philosophical, though, I would like to hear your input. Thanks~
sorry i haven't replied to this much sooner, but i just now noticed it was here. however, your guess was correct. i do see emotion as a result of genetics and environment. i disagree however that this is somehow a circular argument.
Post a Comment