Is there such a thing as New Atheism?

[jeremyp]

Jeremy it was you who for some reason introduced the idea of prediction a word you claim is virtually synonymous with knowledge....and it ain't.

No it was you who decided that knowledge of the future doesn’t count as knowledge. Anyway, we have now established that an omniscient omnipotent god would have knowledge of the future and that leads to logical contradictions and therefore an omniscient omnipotent god cannot exist.

I'm good with omniscience,

No you aren’t. You’re refusing to accept that knowledge of the future is knowledge.

A philosopher might be all at sea with God's omnibenevolence not because God isn't but it's hard to agree what that might even look like.

Adding omnibernevolence to. The mix makes it even worse for you. We observe that there is suffering in the World. An omnibenevolent god with any power to act would not allow that to happen.

With regard to the physical Universe though there are fewer if any objections to the 3 Omnis of God.

Since having the three omnis at the same time is logically impossible, I’ds say there is at least one objection.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

No it was you who decided that knowledge of the future doesn’t count as knowledge. Anyway, we have now established that an omniscient omnipotent god would have knowledge of the future and that leads to logical contradictions and therefore an omniscient omnipotent god cannot exist.

No you aren’t. You’re refusing to accept that knowledge of the future is knowledge.

Adding omnibernevolence to. The mix makes it even worse for you. We observe that there is suffering in the World. An omnibenevolent god with any power to act would not allow that to happen.
Since having the three omnis at the same time is logically impossible, I’ds say there is at least one objection.

But you weren't talking about knowledge of the future but prediction of the future which is an act of forecast on a timeline prior to the event.

With God death and suffering are not the end. We will be raised to freedom from death.
Also is all suffering all bad?......I think not.

So there it is Jeremy I disagree with you. at the end it will be clear that God is love.
In fact omnibenevolent is likely to be an atheist concocted word forged for the construction of its Straw man god.

The Christian take is that God is love.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Maybe it is time for all God of the Omnis discussions to go onto the God of the omnis thread.

Maybe we could tackle another article of new atheist faith. Religion strays onto sciences turf?

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Since having the three omnis at the same time is logically impossible, I’ds say there is at least one objection.

I hope it isn't based on anything dependent on the confusion between prediction and knowledge?

[Stranger]

I hope it isn't based on anything dependent on the confusion between prediction and knowledge?

You seem to be the only one who is confused. Perfect prediction is knowledge as I outlined in #118. Knowledge as true, justified belief is the classical philosophical definition. You often witter on about phiosophy but you don't seem to know anything much about it...

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You seem to be the only one who is confused. Perfect prediction is knowledge as I outlined in #118. Knowledge as true, justified belief is the classical philosophical definition. You often witter on about phiosophy but you don't seem to know anything much about it...

Perfect prediction....please reference the definition of that.
Prediction is not synonymous with knowledge.

[Stranger]

Perfect prediction....please reference the definition of that.

This isn't difficult, Vlad, If you have the means to predict something with absolute certainty, then you know what is going to happen.

Prediction is not synonymous with knowledge.

I didn't say it was.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

This isn't difficult, Vlad, If you have the means to predict something with absolute certainty, then you know what is going to happen.

I didn't say it was.

With God, God is there at all events and there is no necessity for prediction which is an act committed on a timeline prior to the event.

He knows it because he is there. Prediction I would say is never going to yield perfect knowledge although that bit is my POV..

Also prediction is based on expertise. The most perfect prediction can only be made by the most perfect knowledge of the event and that would be gained only by actual presence and if you are actually there claiming to be. Perfect predictor because you are there when it's happening is laughable. You can try that one for yourself.

However there is still the problem that definitionally zprediction is an act on a timeline etc.

So there seems no rescue for your incorrect definitions.

Sorry old bean.

[Stranger]

With God, God is there at all events and there is no necessity for prediction which is an act committed on a timeline prior to the event.

He knows it because he is there.

I think I've suggested before that you keep notes. You seem to have forgotten that it's Steve H and yourself who were arguing that omniscience doesn't include the future because it doesn't exist, for example: #32 or #79 where you said, "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 "."

Prediction I would say is never going to yield perfect knowledge although that bit is my POV..

Also prediction is based on expertise. The most perfect prediction can only be made by the most perfect knowledge of the event and that would be gained only by actual presence.

I refer you back to my previous comments:-

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?

So there seems no rescue for your incorrect definitions.

Sorry old bean.

* yawn *

[Walt Zingmatilder]

I think I've suggested before that you keep notes. You seem to have forgotten that it's Steve H and yourself who were arguing that omniscience doesn't include the future because it doesn't exist, for example: #32 or #79 where you said, "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 "."

I refer you back to my previous comments:-

* yawn *

This sounds like you still have a commitment to confuse knowledge with prediction.

I am not committed to a situation of no future although as you know there are theories of time where this is the case not specific to any theology.

As far as I can see so far atheist objections are to holding the 3 omnis simultaneously rather than true omnipotence being logically impossible.

And the objection to holding the 3 omnis simultaneously is due so far to confusing prediction with knowledge, the ignorance of omnipresence, an unverifiable definition of benevolence which ignores Christian definitions of God and Christian beliefs on our ultimate fate.

[Stranger]

This sounds like you still have a commitment to confuse knowledge with prediction.

You're the only one who's confused about it. You have yet to even try to refute what I said. If you can explain why knowing that something is going to happen because you have an ability to make 100% accurate predictions, is somehow not knowing it, go right ahead. You seem to think knowledge depends on how it is obtained.

As far as I can see so far atheist objections are to holding the 3 omnis simultaneously rather than true omnipotence being logically impossible.

I think there are both.

And the objection to holding the 3 omnis simultaneously is due so far to confusing prediction with knowledge...

Drivel. The situation only arises if you take the view of time that the future doesn't exist. Otherwise, omniscience just includes knowing the future directly.

...the ignorance of omnipresence, an unverifiable definition of benevolence which ignores Christian definitions of God and Christian beliefs on our ultimate fate.

As I said previously (#124):-

Tell you what Vlad, why don't you post "the Christian" definitions of the omnis and "the Christian" "model of god" and we can see what arguments apply or otherwise.

Alternatively, you could post an example atheist argument and then show that is based on a view that no Christians whatsoever believe.

As things stand, you are just making baseless assertions about who believes what and who understands what.

[Walt Zingmatilder]

You're the only one who's confused about it. You have yet to even try to refute what I said. If you can explain why knowing that something is going to happen because you have an ability to make 100% accurate predictions, is somehow not knowing it, go right ahead. You seem to think knowledge depends on how it is obtained.

I think there are both.

Drivel. The situation only arises if you take the view of time that the future doesn't exist. Otherwise, omniscience just includes knowing the future directly.

As I said previously (#124):-

Tell you what Vlad, why don't you post "the Christian" definitions of the omnis and "the Christian" "model of god" and we can see what arguments apply or otherwise.

Alternatively, you could post an example atheist argument and then show that is based on a view that no Christians whatsoever believe.

As things stand, you are just making baseless assertions about who believes what and who understands what.

Yet again commitment to confusing prediction with knowledge and ignorance of omnipresence leading to the forging of a deistic type god denied omnipresence by being restricted to timelines apparently at the beginning where the perfect prediction is made.

[Stranger]

Yet again commitment to confusing prediction with knowledge and ignorance of omnipresence leading to the forging of a deistic type god denied omnipresence by being restricted to timelines apparently at the beginning where the perfect prediction is made.

Any time you want to address what I actually said, let me know...           

[Walt Zingmatilder]

Any time you want to address what I actually said, let me know...           

Anyone who is committed to a God forced by circumstances to bake in or run the universe on some kind of super prediction made at the beginning is better defined as a deist.

Can we direct omni discussions to the appropriate thread?

[Stranger]

Anyone who is committed to a God forced by circumstances to bake in or run the universe on some kind of super prediction made at the beginning is better defined as a deist.

Possibly, possibly not, but you seem to be confusing me with such a person. This despite the fact I keep on pointing out that the notion of the future not existing and hence omniscience not applying to it came from you and Steve, not me. I just responded to it.

Can we direct omni discussions to the appropriate thread?

Okay - I'll copy this response to the other thread.

[jeremyp]

But you weren't talking about knowledge of the future but prediction of the future which is an act of forecast on a timeline prior to the event.

For an omniscient omnipotent god there is no meaningful distinction between knowledge of the future and perfect prediction of the future.

at the end it will be clear that God is love.

God is a human emotion? That's nonsense.

The Christian take is that God is love

This isn't the Christian topic. Have you got a more general less bullshitty definition?