Is there such a thing as New Atheism?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There are a lot of things you don't see. Your generally coherent posts on Brexit make me think the cause is wilful blindness.

That doesn't explain how God not being omniscient is essential for the fall though does it.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think the trouble here is thinking that these great, wonderful, throbbing Greek concepts.......The  omnis are somehow simple and straightforward.

Steve shows us by presenting an alternative theory of time has shown that not to be the case.

Your idea that God does not know the future.....you have in the past apparently equated prediction with knowledge. Are you saying that God did not predict the fall or that he predicted either fall or stand?

And of course why can he have not foreseen or be omniscient and know the fall was going to happen and went ahead anyway?

[jeremyp]

That doesn't explain how God not being omniscient is essential for the fall though does it.

A god that knows everything knows how humans would react to the idea of forbidden fruit.

[jeremyp]

I think the trouble here is thinking that these great, wonderful, throbbing Greek concepts.......The  omnis are somehow simple and straightforward.

They are simple and straight forward. The only reason to claim they are not is if you want to claim the properties for your god but not deal with the logical contradictions that ensue.

Your idea that God does not know the future.....you have in the past apparently equated prediction with knowledge. Are you saying that God did not predict the fall or that he predicted either fall or stand?

A god that knows everything knows the future by definition. The future is definitely part of everything.

And of course why can he have not foreseen or be omniscient and know the fall was going to happen and went ahead anyway?

He could have, but the consequences of Adam and Eve’s actions was death for everybody according to Christians and eternal torture according to some of them. So you would have to accept that your god is a god that is OK with the idea of billions of people dying and being tortured for eternity. That makes him a sick fuck.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

They are simple and straight forward. The only reason to claim they are not is if you want to claim the properties for your god but not deal with the logical contradictions that ensue. A god that knows everything knows the future by definition. The future is definitely part of everything.He could have, but the consequences of Adam and Eve’s actions was death for everybody according to Christians and eternal torture according to some of them. So you would have to accept that your god is a god that is OK with the idea of billions of people dying and being tortured for eternity. That makes him a sick fuck.

Yet again, completely ignoring the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".

Eternal torture?How does that work? God subcontracting punishment to Satan and his little wizards? Biblical literalism does not support that since they themselves will have to contend with Hell.

Or is the so called torture via "dying in your own sin?' Or is it being separated from God and realising that isn't a good thing after all? Or is it being with God forever......when that is the last thing you want?

What I don't think it is is torture......the divine equivalent of pulling fingernails out or stubbing ciggies out on someone's skin.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

the consequences of Adam and Eve’s actions was death for everybody according to Christians and eternal torture according to some of them. So you would have to accept that your god is a god that is OK with the idea of billions of people dying and being tortured for eternity. That makes him a sick fuck.

But that's just part of the story, the alienation of man by his own doing from God.....but that isn't the end because there is the restoration offered in Jesus.

So final alienation is due to initial alienation and elected continued alienation.

[jeremyp]

Yet again, completely ignoring the argument that the future, by definition may actually not exist meaning that nothing omniscient would be under any definitional obligation to " know it ".

If the future doesn't exist, it means omniscience is impossible. It's literally impossible to know everything because the future is part of everything.

Eternal torture?How does that work? God subcontracting punishment to Satan and his little wizards? Biblical literalism does not support that since they themselves will have to contend with Hell.

Ask a Christian. I'm not the one who believes it.

Or is the so called torture via "dying in your own sin?' Or is it being separated from God and realising that isn't a good thing after all? Or is it being with God forever......when that is the last thing you want?

Again, you are asking me to defend a Christian idea. No thanks.

[jeremyp]

But that's just part of the story, the alienation of man by his own doing from God

Who put the Tree of Knowledge of Good and Evil in easy reach of humans? Who made the rule that eating the fruit meant everybody had to die? Who made humans that were likely to break the rule?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

If the future doesn't exist, it means omniscience is impossible. It's literally impossible to know everything because the future is part of everything.Ask a Christian. I'm not the one who believes it.Again, you are asking me to defend a Christian idea. No thanks.

If the future doesn't exist then it cannot be part of everything until it actually exists.

There is no evidence of the future....we are assuming, hoping, going by past experience, believing the prophets that there is one...that's just the way it works. Have you not read Popper?

[jeremyp]

If the future doesn't exist then it cannot be part of everything until it actually exists.

There is no evidence of the future....we are assuming, hoping, going by past experience, believing the prophets that there is one...that's just the way it works. Have you not read Popper?

The future is not made up as we go along. The future is determined by physical law. If God is omniscient, he should know the future.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

The future is not made up as we go along. The future is determined by physical law. If God is omniscient, he should know the future.

We now that at the Big Bang physical laws are not thought to be applicable.

What does Popper tell us.

Physicists talk of unstable universes phase shifts etc.

There may be overarching physical laws

A God who is omniscient i.e. Knows everything that exists or has existed is responsible for physical laws of which there is evidence that they were not always applicable. That is true even if God had decided there should be a future.

Physical laws are dependent on God not God dependent on physical laws.

Physical laws are not logical laws since some, most or all have emerged after Big Bang.

[Stranger]

There is no evidence of the future....

There is plentiful evidence of Special and General Relativity that tell us that there can be no universally applicable moment in time, hence no present moment and no absolute past or future.

There is no evidence that the present is a physical reality. 'Now' is like 'here', as far as the evidence goes.

We now that at the Big Bang physical laws are not thought to be applicable.

Drivel. Humans not yet knowing the relevant laws does not imply that no laws are applicable. There are several hypotheses.

What does Popper tell us.

Is relevant to an omniscient god, in what way?

Physicists talk of unstable universes phase shifts etc.

There may be overarching physical laws

A God who is omniscient i.e. Knows everything that exists or has existed is responsible for physical laws of which there is evidence that they were not always applicable. That is true even if God had decided there should be a future.

Even if we ignore the evidence that there is no real present, if there is a god of the omnis, the future either depends on laws that it has established and fully understands, on its own interventions that violate said laws, or on some truly random element that it has decided not to know about.

In the last case, can an omni god decide to keep itself in the dark? Sounds like an omnipotent god relinquishing omniscience.

In the second case, does an omniscient god know its own mind and hence what it will do in some (predictable) future scenario? If not, how is it omniscient?

[jeremyp]

We now that at the Big Bang physical laws are not thought to be applicable.

What does Popper tell us.

Physicists talk of unstable universes phase shifts etc.

There may be overarching physical laws

A God who is omniscient i.e. Knows everything that exists or has existed is responsible for physical laws of which there is evidence that they were not always applicable. That is true even if God had decided there should be a future.

Physical laws are dependent on God not God dependent on physical laws.

Physical laws are not logical laws since some, most or all have emerged after Big Bang.

You’re only making it worse for yourself.

Omniscient God would know knows the exact state of the Universe just after the Big Bang. Omniscient God created the laws of physics and there for knows exactly how the Universe would evolve given any initial state. Therefore omniscient God knows exactly how the Universe will evolve from now on. I.e. omniscient God knows the future.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You’re only making it worse for yourself.

Omniscient God would know knows the exact state of the Universe just after the Big Bang. Omniscient God created the laws of physics and there for knows exactly how the Universe would evolve given any initial state. Therefore omniscient God knows exactly how the Universe will evolve from now on. I.e. omniscient God knows the future.

Your model sounds like perfect prediction equated with knowledge. His knowledge in that scheme would be a kind of 'told you so I knew this would happen'. That is certainly one model which kind of locates God at some sort of beginning.


Another is that he knows because he is there at every moment (omnipresence).

[jeremyp]

Your model sounds like perfect prediction equated with knowledge. His knowledge in that scheme would be a kind of 'told you so I knew this would happen'. That is certainly one model which kind of locates God at some sort of beginning.


Another is that he knows because he is there at every moment (omnipresence).

So you agree that omniscient God would know the exact state of the Universe as it is right now and would also have perfect knowledge of the laws of the Universe and omnipotent God could therefore predict the exact consequences of the current state and the laws. So omniscient omnipotent God knows the future.

But if he knows the future, all of his own actions in there Universe are baked in. So either he can't change his mind about his actions, or he can't predict the future. Either way, he is either not omnipotent or not omniscient.

Why are Christians so attached to the omni- labels? Even to the point where they'd rather redefine them than admit their god logically cannot be all of them.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

There is plentiful evidence of Special and General Relativity that tell us that there can be no universally applicable moment in time, hence no present moment and no absolute past or future.

I don't believe I have referred to universally applicable moment in time or absolute pasts and future. You seem to be suggesting that time is completely illusiory

There is no evidence that the present is a physical reality. 'Now' is like 'here', as far as the evidence goes.

That sounds like it makes omnipresence easier if you only have to be in all places rather than all places at all times.

Drivel. Humans not yet knowing the relevant laws does not imply that no laws are applicable. There are several hypotheses.

Didn't I mention their might be overarching rules? Yes, I believe I did

Is relevant to an omniscient god, in what way?

It is relevant to the future since Popper reminds us that there is no ultimate guarantee that what has been observed will be again.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

So you agree that omniscient God would know the exact state of the Universe as it is right now and would also have perfect knowledge of the laws of the Universe and omnipotent God could therefore predict the exact consequences of the current state and the laws. So omniscient omnipotent God knows the future.

But if he knows the future, all of his own actions in there Universe are baked in.

How do you mean '' baked in? ''


We certainly cannot dispute your model for a certain kind of predetermined universe. But is the universe like that.


Secondly, Your model has nothing in it that actually precludes an omnipresent God...unless you insist on God entering the picture after the big bang.


Thirdly Stranger has helpfully provided a model of a universe where there is only really place....this might mean that talk of a beginning is wrong...and your model is a God starting the ball rolling type of God.

In fact those are our basic options The universe just appeared or it had no beginning.

[jeremyp]

You seem to be suggesting that time is completely illusiory

No he's not, or at least, no relativity is not. Time exists, it is just that your view of it changes based on your frame of reference.

An analogous situation is that we could both be at a football match and I could say "the Arsenal goal is on the left and the Man U goal is on the right" and you could say "the Arsenal goal is on the right and the Man U goal is on the left". We can both be right, but it doesn't mean that the football pitch between them is an illusion, only that we are on opposite sides of the stadium.

[jeremyp]

How do you mean '' baked in? ''

Please don't feign inability to understand English.

We certainly cannot dispute your model for a certain kind of predetermined universe. But is the universe like that.

As far as we know - the equations we have that describe the laws of physics are deterministic.

Secondly, Your model has nothing in it that actually precludes an omnipresent God...unless you insist on God entering the picture after the big bang.

No it doesn't. Your point?

Thirdly Stranger has helpfully provided a model of a universe where there is only really place....

No he hasn't. That's merely your (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Please don't feign inability to understand English.

As far as we know - the equations we have that describe the laws of physics are deterministic.
No it doesn't. Your point?
No he hasn't. That's merely your (possibly deliberate) misunderstanding.

Why use ''baked in'' which is open to a lot of interpretation rather than the term ''a fully determined universe in which there is no apparent randomness or emergence''.


Secondly, If God is going to bake something in, why not himself, his character and his attributes as well as order etc.


Does Stranger propose that there is only place with time as illusiory?.....Let's review what he has said.

There is plentiful evidence of Special and General Relativity that tell us that there can be no universally applicable moment in time, hence no present moment and no absolute past or future.

There is no evidence that the present is a physical reality. 'Now' is like 'here', as far as the evidence goes.

[Stranger]

I don't believe I have referred to universally applicable moment in time or absolute pasts and future.

In a discussion of an omniscient god, you referred to there being no evidence for the future. This makes no sense unless you can define "the future" in some universally applicable way.

You seem to be suggesting that time is completely illusiory

What gives you that idea?

That sounds like it makes omnipresence easier if you only have to be in all places rather than all places at all times.

Glaring non-sequitur; and what the fuck has being easier got to do with anything?

It is relevant to the future since Popper reminds us that there is no ultimate guarantee that what has been observed will be again.

Which doesn't answer my question as to how it is relevant to an omniscient god.

You've then totally ignored my main points:

Even if we ignore the evidence that there is no real present, if there is a god of the omnis, the future either depends on laws that it has established and fully understands, on its own interventions that violate said laws, or on some truly random element that it has decided not to know about.

In the last case, can an omni god decide to keep itself in the dark? Sounds like an omnipotent god relinquishing omniscience.

In the second case, does an omniscient god know its own mind and hence what it will do in some (predictable) future scenario? If not, how is it omniscient?

And FFS take more care with your quote tags - there's a great 'preview' option that allow you to check if you've got it wrong before you even post...   

[Walt Zingmatilder]

In a discussion of an omniscient god, you referred to there being no evidence for the future. This makes no sense unless you can define "the future" in some universally applicable way.

Point 1 has a timeline, Point 2 has a timeline, point 10 to the power 1708 has a timeline. All timelines have a past, present and future and that is where the universality lies. None of these points has any evidence for a future.


Can you point to evidence now of what happens tomorrow.....any tomorrow anywhere?

Glaring non-sequitur; and what the fuck has being easier got to do with anything?

OK I was being a little bit flip on that one.

You've then totally ignored my main points:

Even if we ignore the evidence that there is no real present, if there is a god of the omnis, the future either depends on laws that it has established and fully understands, on its own interventions that violate said laws, or on some truly random element that it has decided not to know about.

In the last case, can an omni god decide to keep itself in the dark? Sounds like an omnipotent god relinquishing omniscience.

In the second case, does an omniscient god know its own mind and hence what it will do in some (predictable) future scenario? If not, how is it omniscient?

And FFS take more care with your quote tags - there's a great 'preview' option that allow you to check if you've got it wrong before you even post...   

Why should an omnipotent God not do what she likes? With the exception of course of making a stone it can't move.

Why are you allowed to use the word future and yet no one else is Stranger? what do you mean by it?


God is not dependent on Laws, it's the other way round. We already mentioned overarching laws which might allow things that look like violations.

[jeremyp]

Why use ''baked in'' which is open to a lot of interpretation

No it isn't.

rather than the term ''a fully determined universe in which there is no apparent randomness or emergence''.

Because it is about God's own actions being baked in.

Does Stranger propose that there is only place with time as illusiory?.....Let's review what he has said.

At no point in that post does The Stranger say time is illusory.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it isn't.

Then if it is not open to interpretation it has a single interpretation which you are Obviously capable of providing.

[Stranger]

Point 1 has a timeline, Point 2 has a timeline, point 10 to the power 1708 has a timeline. All timelines have a past, present and future and that is where the universality lies. None of these points has any evidence for a future.


Can you point to evidence now of what happens tomorrow.....any tomorrow anywhere?

We are talking about a future from the point of view of an omni god here, in what way do individual perceptions of past, present and future have any bearing?

As for evidence of the future goes, yes, (for example) there is very good evidence that the next perihelion of Halley's Comet will be on 28th July 2061, from the point of view of humans on Earth.

Why should an omnipotent God not do what she likes? With the exception of course of making a stone it can't move.

No idea. Relevance, and why the restriction?

Why are you allowed to use the word future and yet no one else is Stranger? what do you mean by it?

Note that I started the section with "Even if we ignore the evidence that there is no real present...". More generally, you seem to be confusing individual observers in space-time with your supposed omni god.

God is not dependent on Laws, it's the other way round.

I explicitly said that: "...the future either depends on laws that [god] has established and fully understands...".

We already mentioned overarching laws which might allow things that look like violations.

And so...?