God Would Not Use Natural Language to Communicate His Word
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
An excerpt from The Age of Reason regarding God using natural language to communicate His Word:
If we permit ourselves to conceive right ideas of things, we must necessarily affix the idea, not only of unchangeableness, but of the utter impossibility of any change taking place, by any means or accident whatever, in that which we would honor with the name of the word of God; and therefore the word of God cannot exist in any written or human language.
The continually progressive change to which the meaning of words is subject , the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration , are of themselves evidences that the human language , whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the word of God . The word of God exists in something else.
Here Paine (a deist) argues that due to the evolving meaning of words over time, the need for language translation, human transcription error, etc. the true Word of God cannot possibly be represented in the form of natural language. In effect, he is describing why (in part) there are so many interpretations of the Bible and, in so doing, arguing that the Bible is not divine.
An ancient argument that applies today.
Tags
Who is online
574 visitors
The Bible demonstrably has an uncountable number of incompatible interpretations. The reasons for this were obvious to 18th century founder Thomas Paine. His argument concludes that the Bible should not be looked upon as the divine Word of God. Maybe 'Age of Reason' was a bit too generous?
This isn't surprising, as Paine was a deist. The problem with his view, of course, is that it actually leaves a personal God out of the equation. That is, regardless of how fallible humans are in handling the revealed world of God, he apparently doesn't believe God can manage to communicate what He intends to, to whom He intends to communicate. Since it was the Bible of which he was speaking he apparently felt it stood on it's own with no involvement from God. A typical deist view, as I understand it.
He was arguing that the Bible is not the Word of God because God would not choose textual language to communicate important matters to his creations given its propensity for multiple interpretations and degradation over time.
Your response seems to acknowledge the problem Paine observes and offers the solution that God directly communicates His Word to select individuals.
My question on your response is why God would play favorites and communicate with some rather than all of his creations.
( Hi Drak )
Are you speaking about Only (1) ONE religion ?
If memory serves me right, Most, if not all religions, no matter the language, has a "God" in one form or another, and they've ALL have even had a "Holy Book" written about religious exploits of some Deity or another.
One thing I find common in "ALL" religions is, a "God" is the main subject of the words written in every language.
No. The Bible is the foundation for quite a few religions.
If you read Age of Reason, Thomas Paine applies his logic to other holy books such as the Qur'an.
Would you expect otherwise?
A holy book for a religion would naturally have a god as the prominent character. The gods have different names, attributes, and stories but they are all very powerful sentient entities. Not sure what point you are making.
"the want of a universal language which renders translation necessary, the errors to which translations are again subject, the mistakes of copyists and printers, together with the possibility of willful alteration, are of themselves evidences that the human language, whether in speech or in print, cannot be the vehicle of the word of God. The word of God exists in something else.
Very "Finite" words on a subject....for a human ! Did "God" speak to him too ?
Paine offers the evidence supporting his conclusion. Human beings make arguments all the time without first consulting with God. Your point?
As he ?
Seems to me, Paine has more a thing against "Priests".
he also notes:
"Any system of religion that has anything in it that shocks the mind of a child, cannot be true." — Thomas Paine
Has religion EVER only been about Good things ?
I assume by "directly", you mean without the need of the written word, i.e. the Bible. Certainly the Bible contains accounts of God communicating directly with individuals. Moses, for instance. However, this is beside the point when considering Paine's claim. Specifically that God's word cannot exist in any written or human language. A claim with which I disagree.
In Isaiah 55:10, 11 God says:
This is part of why I disagree with Paine. There is nothing in this that depends on human interpretation or language shift. It doesn't include the condition "as long as it is interpreted correctly". Paine's error is believing that if the word of God were able to be contained in writing or language, we would presumably not be able to alter, make errors or otherwise misinterpret it. There's no reason presented for believing this to be true and every evidence to believe it's not. In short, he holds our fallibility to be proof that God cannot do it. I see no reason to believe that. If the Bible results in the achievement of the purpose for which God intended, then how could it not be perfect?
As another example, God tells us His power is perfected our weakness, meaning our inability to be perfect according to His standards is no barrier to His salvation of us. It is recognition of that very weakness on our part that allows God to step in and do what only He can. In the same way the word of God functions. We may indeed sometimes interpret it incorrectly but that is no barrier to his word. Paine couldn't see this because he saw God as more a force of nature than what He truly is, a personal God.
That is not what Paine concluded. He concluded that a God would not choose to use natural language to communicate with his creations. (Note: conclusion - not claim of certainty). God could have used static, natural language but He would have done so knowing that it would soon be mangled by human beings. Difficult to rationalize why an omnipotent entity would purposely communicate in such an ineffective manner when said entity could communicate directly with every creation if He so wished.
But it is 2018 and you can look around and see what really happened. Look at the many entirely different interpretations (and religions). If God's purpose is being achieved then clearly God's purpose was not to consistently communicate his Word. One could of course speculate that the many incompatible interpretations are God's plan and these will all converge someday (after evolving independently) into a single unified interpretation. But note, that in all this time, countless billions would have lived their lives holding to one of these many faulty interpretations. So the only creations who will get the ' correct ' Word are those around when the grand unification occurs.
To me this is simple. The Bible is demonstrably vague, errant, immoral and internally inconsistent (contradictions). On its own, it has no credibility. Unless we see good evidence to the contrary, a quite logical conclusion is that it is simply words of ancient men. That alone explains the (less than perfect) content and is considerably more straightforward than an omnipotent entity whose plan involves evolving confusion in His Word for thousands of years.
I do not understand what you mean by this (the blue ).
According to your quote of Paine, he did in fact conclude exactly that.
Please note that he didn't say "would not", but instead "cannot."
What makes you think it is ineffective? Presumably, because some outcome you personally expect has not occurred. Have you asked yourself, though, why you should expect God to adhere to your expectations? That is, is it not possible that God has an entirely different idea of what constitutes success in His communication? Why should your expectations be the standard for success?
This is Paine's problem. He expects from God some sort of system that doesn't involve faith or reliance on God. He wants a God that must be approached scientifically, no faith required. Since He doesn't get that through Christianity (as He sees it) it therefore nullifies it, especially the Bible.
Hmmm. Perhaps I should have said this instead:
Usage is important. Recognize that Paine is offering a logical argument with a resulting conclusion. He is not arguing that it is impossible (cannot) for the Word of God to be written down. Rather, he is arguing that natural language will fail (over time) for communicating God's Word. Paine is not arguing that God is incapable of using natural language. He is arguing that God would not make this choice .
The word ' cannot ' does not connote an incapability of God but rather the impossibility of the Word of God surviving unmarred if God chose to place it in natural language.
To wit, his conclusion is that God would not make this choice (for the reasons he offers), not that God cannot make this choice.
Because the Bible (and other holy books) are demonstrably vague and yield countless conflicting interpretations. Obviously this is an ineffective method to get people to know the truth. For example, here is a passage which reflects God's morality. Do you think everyone will understand this the same way?:
Some will see God using violence as punishment for the acts of the Amalekites. Others will see God deeming it moral to slaughter infants. On and on ... How many different (and conflicting) interpretations from this one verse? How many people have taken this verse and used it as justification for their actions? Worse, there is no legitimate way to deduce the proper interpretation because, per your argument, man should not presume to know God's thoughts . So where does that leave us? If we do not understand something or cannot figure out which of the many interpretations is true then we just conclude that we are too stupid to understand God. Thus this, and other passages, accomplish what exactly? Please explain how one can get truth simply from the written words in the Bible (clearly, in this context, you cannot argue that God will directly communicate with you to provide the proper interpretation). Short of the explanation, how can one not conclude that the Bible is an ineffective mechanism for communicating truth?
Arguing that, in effect, ' God works in mysterious ways ' is not at all persuasive. In fact it is a cliche cop-out tapping into the universal excuse for every flaw: ' we just are not smart enough to understand His perfection '. This is one of the master-strokes of religions to dissuade critical thinking: ' if you perceive a mistake in the Bible it is just your human failing, God is perfect '.
why would interpretation be needed at all for God's word ? Isn't God able to accomplish direct lines of communication that wouldn't involve needing interpretation ?
I'm sorry, but I think you are mistaken. I understand what you are saying. I also understand Paine's point and the logic behind it. But it still comes down to the same thing according to Paine. The word of God cannot exist in any written or human language, the explanation for which he gives the second paragraph of the excerpt you provided.
The problem with Paine's view is that, in my view, he had a wrong notion concerning God's word. Being a deist, he felt one could determine the nature of God from observation of the natural world. I know little about the man but apparently, he felt God's word to be something more akin to nature than anything else. Further, since he likely believed in a non-interventionist God, his reasoning was designed toward that end.
If this is so, then it's of little surprise he reasoned as he did. However, I do not believe God is one of non-intervention and I see no reason to change my mind here. While Paine is correct concerning the changing meaning of words, lack of a universal language, errors in translations and so on, this does not mean God's written word would necessarily become ineffective.
Although not stated by Paine in the excerpt, it certainly seems implied by you that God's written word would, or should, be able to stand on it's own without anything else necessary. It would be clear and unambiguous. The question is, how do we know it isn't? You summarize the problem here thusly:
There are a couple of possibilities here. Either God isn't very good at communicating, or the problem is on our end. We are unable to understand. I think the problem is on our end.
To illustrate I like to think of two people, one sighted and one born blind. There is much a blind person can understand about the world around them, but they will never really understand what it is to see.
That is something like what it is for us. We are born spiritually blind to God. We simply do not have the capability to "see" what He does. We can imagine all sorts of things, but like the blind trying to imagine sight we are still just as blind.
God's word is part of what God does to correct this blindness (as much as it can be while we are in this world). By itself, it is useless because reading words in a book doesn't magically do anything to alleviate our blindness. But the book, combined with God's spirit, does. The Bible tells us we are born again, this time with the ability to see spiritually. We're aided in this by the Holy Spirit, who teaches us what the words mean.
This is why Paine is wrong. He approaches God as if He were just a part of the natural world. Indifferent to himself as a person. He apparently couldn't imagine God actually being personally involved in our lives.
Yes, I've heard this more times than I can count. Unfortunately for your side, there's little logic to it. In effect, making this claim is your side's way of copping out.
Consider. For God to be worthy of the title, would He not necessarily be more than we are? If so, how can any created thing expect perfect understanding about God? We are demonstrably finite beings. How then, can we understand the infinite?
If that is so, why should your expectations, grounded in your finite understanding, be the gage of God's success in communications? How can you, who can't even tell me why an electron has a charge rather than just being an inert particle, decide God, if He exists, isn't communicating effectively? What qualifies Paine?
Well, first, this isn't an example of God's morality. It is an example of God's judgement. Secondly, why do you think it's ineffective? It certainly communicates a number of things to me. To answer your question, though, no. Not everyone will understand it in the same way. Hardly surprising considering free will.
Okay Drak. I do not know why you want to insist that Paine is trying to argue it is impossible for God to put His Word on paper, but I am not going to argue about it anymore since it is irrelevant to the point of the seed. The point, of course, is that Paine argues that natural language is an ineffective (flawed, problematic) mechanism for communicating the Word of God. He argues it will not work, but not that God cannot do it (if He so desires).
I think you are way over-thinking this - going well beyond Paine's argument. Paine's comments are pretty straightforward and his argument is simple:
∴ the Word of God -even if initially represented perfectly in natural language- will quickly degrade and be imperfect. It will no longer be the Word of God.
But it demonstrably is! We observe it all the time. We have the benefit of hindsight and contemporary evidence - overwhelming evidence. Even with an interventionist God (your hypothesis) it is Paine-fully obvious (pun intended) that God's written Word (alleged of course) has indeed suffered the noted problems. Who could possibly even suggest that the Bible is consistently interpreted?
Other than the many varied interpretations? What am I missing here Drak? How can you possibly suggest the Bible is clear and unambiguous when the evidence to the contrary is so abundant?
( God made us. If there is a problem on our end then we should check with the designer / manufacturer. )
If you were correct then the Bible combined with God's spirit would have ensured that everyone had the truth. But clearly that is also not the case. Clearly people have all sorts of conflicted views of religious truths. So you are not correct. But note that you had to add God's spirit - basically demonstrating that Paine was correct.
Paine, a deist, was correct per his claim that the written word could not effectively communicate the Word of God. You agree with that. I agree with that. You offer the Spirit as the necessary mechanism to mitigate the problem Paine observed and while describing the necessary solution deem Paine wrong.
To wit, you claim Paine was wrong while noting that he was right about what he claimed. Not sure what to make of this logic.
God's written word should absolutely be able to stand on it's own without anything else necessary - God is a "perfect" entity, correct ? are you stating that a "perfect" entity such as God would be unable to communicate effectively "imperfect" humans in a way that the "imperfect" humans would be able to perfectly understand it and not have varied interpretations ?
why would the problem be at our end ? God created humans (assumed) so already knows the imperfections - are you stating that God can't account for that when communicating with humans ? what kind of perfect entity would create an imperfect entity - then communicate imperfectly with that imperfect entity so entity communicated with would get it wrong all the time ?
Not what I'm arguing at all. I am arguing against the idea that God doing so would be ineffectual.
Well, of course I am going beyond his argument since I find his argument flawed. What else do you expect?
This debate isn't whether or not the Bible is consistently interpreted. It is about whether or not God's word can be effectively communicated through the written word.
You seem to have missed the point. The equation E=MC² is clear and unambiguous, but how many people actually understand what it means?
What are you saying? That God is to blame for the choices we make or for allowing us the choice in the first place?
Again, this isn't a debate about whether or not God's word is correctly or consistently interpreted. It is about whether or not God's word can be effectively communicated. Apparently, you seem to believe for this to happen, anyone who opens a Bible and reads could not help but see the truth of God. This is not so for a number of reasons but I don't really need to go into that. All I need do is point to those who have chosen to follow God to prove the communication was effective. If it were not, no one would follow Him.
I disagree. Saying I had to add God's Spirit is like saying I had to add gravity to explain why something falls. It is not some Ex Machina device to make the plot work.
Imagine someone wrote a book that everyone raved about. You decided to read it but there's a problem. It was only published in French and you don't speak that language. You really want to read the story, though, so you hire an interpreter.
No, actually, I don't. The written word can effectively communicate the word of God if there is someone there to explain what it means. My argument from the beginning is that Paine's deism prevents him from considering God's efforts in understanding the word.
Good to hear, that is the topic.
His argument is the topic. This article is not about Paine or his belief system. That is, you could forget who authored the argument because the argument is the point. If you want to talk about Paine that is your choice, I am just saying that it is a different topic.
The Bible (and other holy works) are the real life examples of God (ostensibly) communicating through natural language. The lack of consistent interpretation in the Bible, etc. is illustration of how natural language is an ineffective medium for communicating God's word.
With that analogy you are arguing that the Bible, etc. is intended to be interpreted by a tiny audience of incredibly knowledgeable people rather than to all mankind? Since when? Also, note that even the most scholarly, learned individuals disagree on the meaning of scripture, etc. So there you go.
God is responsible for everything!! God is omnipotent and omniscient - that means everything that happens is a result of His will. One cannot define a God that is all powerful and all knowing and then logically claim that He is somehow not involved when bad things happen. This is very basic logic. One must change the definition of God or ignore logic to get past this point.
True, it is a debate about whether natural language is an effective medium for God to communicate. The overwhelming evidence that it is not an effective medium are the many holy books such as the Bible and the large number of incompatible interpretations.
... using natural language. Yes. (see above)
If people interpret the Bible in incompatible ways it is difficult for them ALL to be holding the truth, right?
Not really a rebuttal. You have dramatically narrowed the usage of the word 'effective' to mean 'will follow Him'. Effective (by the context of this article and the argument it hosts) applies to the message God communicates - not simply that people follow Him.
No, you adding God's Spirit illustrates that the text cannot stand on its own. That is the point!
"...if there is someone there to explain what it means.. " directly illustrates that the text cannot effectively communicate God's Word. One must have an interpreter to get to the truth. Without an interpreter the language is vague and contradictory (and because of human involvement is errant). That pretty much agrees with Paine's argument. Might as well just chuck the text and have the interpreter directly communicate with you. See?
It does not matter why Paine believes as he does. This topic is about his argument. I suspect he would agree that direct communication from God would be effective even though natural language is not.
(Sigh) I'm not talking about Paine, I'm talking about Paine's argument. Please parse what I said.
Just to give you a few examples that I am in fact talking about the topic and not Paine himself.
As I have said before, I disagree. Probably because we have differing criteria for what constitutes effective communication. Yours appears to be that everyone who reads God's word should arrive at the same conclusion. Mine is that the desired result for which God sent His word is achieved. That desired result, as far as I understand it, isn't perfect understanding of God's word. That doesn't bring about salvation. The desired result is to bring the individual to acceptance of Christ.
The reason I think Paine's argument fails is because he felt the failings of human language was some sort of barrier to God. It isn't. In fact, even if we had some sort of language that would nullify Paine's objections, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. This is because the problem has much less to do with language than what is in the human heart and mind.
Not exactly. I would object to the "incredibly knowledgeable" part. It actually doesn't take much knowledge at all in order to understand what God wishes to accomplish in communicating with us. Mostly it's faith. Just as in the example with E=MC². Most don't really understand it but believe it's true.
True, but it's never been my argument that the goal of God's communication through the written word is perfect understanding of that same written word. As Paul says in Romans, it's okay to disagree about a number of things as long as, generally speaking, we accept Christ as savior and love one another. As Christ said, if we do those things, we are obeying God's word.
God is responsible for everything!! God is omnipotent and omniscient - that means everything that happens is a result of His will. One cannot define a God that is all powerful and all knowing and then logically claim that He is somehow not involved when bad things happen. This is very basic logic. One must change the definition of God or ignore logic to get past this point.
There is so much wrong with this statement, in my view, that I need a separate post to address it. Let's begin with:
My first though concerning this statement was, why do you think this? I suppose your second sentence of this paragraph explains the first, but I just have to ask why you think the second sentence is true.
So let's start with the first claim. If you believe God is responsible for everything then, essentially, you have a monergistic view of God. Basically, we're just automatons in a playset that God set up to entertain Himself. There's no such thing as free will. You aren't arguing against me because your intellect and learning leads you to your logic. You do so because God set that role for you and you have no choice in the matter.
Alternatively, from an atheistic perspective, who we are and what we believe is no more than a chemical reaction within our brains. I tend to think of that as atheistic monergism. Our sense of self is nothing but a mechanism of the chemical reaction of the brain and the idea that we choose what we believe is an illusion.
If either of these things are true, then there's no real point in what we are doing. Who is right and who is wrong is meaningless because we can't change anything any more than a cog in a machine can choose to do something else.
I believe we have free will, making me a synergist. While my belief doesn't make synergism true, the world seems to suggest that it is. That is, if I appear to be able to make decisions, then Occam's Razor seems to suggest that I can. Now, let me ask you: Do you believe you have a choice in what you do? If you do, then how can God be responsible for everything? How can everything be a result of His will?
Further, pertaining to your second statement, if it's God's will that we are allowed to make our own choices, how can He stop us from making them without taking away that free will? With that, let's look at your third statement in that paragraph.
I didn't claim that God isn't involved when bad things happen. I intimated that God isn't to blame for the choices we make. But it seems that you feel that God being all powerful and all knowing would, or should mean that those attributes would preclude our bad choices. Why? Perhaps it is because you don't understand God's omnipotence or omniscience. Omnipotence doesn't mean God can do anything we can imagine or not imagine. While there is no restriction on God's omniscience, I don't think you understand the word "omnipotence" as it applies to God. It doesn't mean He can do anything. It means He can do anything He desires to do. Do you see the difference?
Example. God can't make a truth a lie and can't make a lie a truth. But what's infinitely more important, He would never desire to. To desire to do so isn't possible for Him. He would not place three planets before you and tell you there were only two.
In the same way, He would not give you free will and then prevent you from exercising it. If He did, you wouldn't have free will and it would be a lie.
So, is God giving us free will wrong? I, of course, think God doesn't do what is wrong so it's not surprising to hear me say no. It wasn't wrong. But, then, why did He give it to us?
I don't know the theological answer. That is, I can't point to chapter and verse, but my opinion is, that without free will, we can't appreciate who He is. I've seen many in here and in NV say that the original sin was our desiring knowledge. I think that's wrong. I think God wanted us to know a lot of stuff. But what we couldn't know was the difference between right and wrong. There was no mechanism in place to teach it, and without it, we couldn't truly know God.
So God placed the tree of knowledge of good and evil. He didn't put it there in hope of our never partaking of the fruit. He did it knowing full well that we would. How else could He give us free will? It was at the moment of the command not to eat of it's fruit that we received free will. People think the critical moment was the eating of the fruit. I think it was the giving of the command. The command made it possible. Without it, eating the fruit would do nothing.
So, one may claim that God is to blame for our bad actions because He gave us free will. We can choose to do wrong because God allows us to. Since He allows us to, when He can stop us from doing so, then the responsibility ultimately falls on Him.
If this something you feel is true, then imagine this. The government comes up with some device that prevents you from doing whatever it deems is wrong. It decides what you do, when, where, and all the rest. Who you marry. What job you have. When you leave for work. What you eat. When you go home. What you say. What you think. What you do for leisure and so on. The result is a perfectly peaceful society but the government determines every aspect of your life. Are they right or wrong to use it?
Or, alternatively, one can have a more correct understanding of God in the first place.
I did. Drak, look, this is what you wrote:
Pretend that this argument was written by an anonymous individual. That is what I was getting at. It does not matter (at least in this article) what Paine was thinking or what he 'felt'. What matters is the argument itself. Sure, if there is ambiguity in the argument that can be resolved based on knowledge of the author then I could understand that. But you are debating Paine's viewpoint rather than the argument. That is what I meant.
Since it has been a while, here is the argument again (semi-formalized):
∴ the Word of God - even if initially represented perfectly in natural language - will quickly degrade and be imperfect. It will no longer be the Word of God.
Apparently through mixed messages that demonstrably lead quite a few religious people away from acceptance of Christ. The Bible is behind Judaism, Islam and Christianity. Of this group, Christianity is the only part that accepts Christ as God. And it seems the trend is downwards to where Christianity will be less than half of those who follow the Bible. Then, when we consider the world, Christianity is about 1/3 of the world's population. It is the most popular category of religion but is this really the best God could do? One would naturally expect the creator of the known universe to achieve better results than this.
But we know that at the very best only 1/3 of the population accepts Christ as God (being generous because that includes people who simply claim to be Christian). So is this not rather decent evidence that language has indeed been a barrier to God? You argue that God's objective is singular and not complex - acceptance of Christ. By what measure is this good performance?
The fact that so many people see things differently suggests otherwise. Further, I must ask how you know what God wishes to accomplish? And is it possible that what you 'know' is different from what others 'know'? If so, does anyone truly 'know' anything about God or do they just think they 'know'?
The difference, however, is that Einstein's oversimplified iconic equation can be broken down into very sophisticated formal physics (his field equations) and these equations have proven themselves for over a century to be highly credible. In short, they work. We see the results of Einstein's equations with satellite communication, space travel, etc. We can break down Einstein's theories and understand them in layers starting with basic concepts and down to the mathematics of the field equations. We have tons of documented experimentation and modern, living experts (at various levels) who can defend his theories in real time. If you doubt E=MC² it is easy to find more explanations than you need to feel comfortable it is credible. Compare this now with the Bible which lacks original source and is corroborrated almost entirely by itself. Then add to that the many errors and it is difficult to find the Bible as trustworthy. It really must be faith because evidence and reason does, in my opinion, lead one to finding the Bible to be the errant work of ancient men.
How is God not responsible for everything? God is the uber-entity, the creator of all. How is it possible that God is not ultimately responsible? That is the question to answer.
Yes. Given God is defined as omniscient, free will cannot possibly exist. You are using the fallacy of argument from incredulity.
Not sure that is an atheistic perspective. Atheism is simply the lack of belief in a god. So if there is no god claiming to be omniscient then omniscience could be impossible. If so, then reality may be nondeterministic. If so, free will is possible.
In both case you are talking about free will. If there is no free will then yes indeed we are cogs in a very large, very complex machine. What we see as free will would, in that scenario, be nothing more than an illusion. Note: reality as we perceive it (as complex organisms) is an illusion. For example, I cannot actually kiss my wife. What appears to be contact is simply electrons in my lips repelling electrons in hers. Even stranger is that we are mostly composed of empty space. Arguably everything we perceive is a dramatic oversimplification of a lower reality that behaves quite differently from out intuition.
Well, let's go back to the beginning. You posit a God that is omniscient. If God (or anything else) can be omniscient then it is necessarily possible to know what will happen. That means that every choice is known before it is made. That means reality is deterministic. If omniscience is possible (by any entity) then free will cannot exist.
In short, if reality is deterministic we do not have free will (by definition) and if any entity is omniscient then reality is deterministic.
I am not convinced there is a god and certainly am not convinced that any entity is omniscient. I do not hold omniscience to be possible (logically, out of scope, I could offer an argument as to why it seems to be impossible). I do not know if reality is deterministic. Even if there is no omniscience, reality could be nothing more than a complex cause & effect chain. The uber domnino effect. If so, there is no free will no matter how maddening that clashes with our intuition.
He could not. If God is omniscient (meaning omniscience is possible ... meaning reality is deterministic) then God cannot grant us free will (only an illusion of same). If God is not omniscient and created a reality that was non-deterministic then he need not do anything more to have -in effect- granted us genuine free will. Take away omniscience (and omnipotence) and you have a God that is no longer logically impossible.
So let's assume a non-omniscient, non-omnipotent God. God, defined this way, could grant free will and could interject. If God interjects he is messing with the freedom of choice but as long as the individual can defy God free will would be preserved. Freedom of choice, however, is impacted because God would be coercing choice. For example, declaring homosexual relations punishable by death does not remove free will but surely dissuades people from making certain choices.
See above. We have no free will (much less the ability to even choose) if omniscience is possible. So given an omniscient God everything that happens is ultimately God's choice.
... or you have an alternate definition for these terms?
If God desires to do X then God can do X. Correct? So if God desires to stop Stalin from engaging in the slaughter of his countrymen he could do so. If God desires for all creatures to accept Christ He could accomplish this. If God desires mankind to love one another He can make this so. If God wants Satan gone, He can make Satan no longer exist. Anything good or anything bad that occurs, God can addres if He desires. So where is the problem?
First of all, I have to ask how you could possibly know these details? But more to the point, I am okay with the assumption that God cannot violate basic logic (e.g. to make Himself inexistant and then emerge from nothing). So let's focus on Earth and all the things that God could do. How is God not ultimately responsible for everything his creations do? Hint: God cannot be both omniscient and omnipotent.
Logically true. So the God that is forming is one that is not omniscient, omnipotent and totally honest. That God could create a non-deterministic reality and choose to not inhibit free will. If God is not omniscient then He would certainly not be 100% responsible since even He did not know what would happen. However, He would be responsible for not acting when he saw atrocities such as the Holocaust take place or allowing cancer to form and destroy the innocent bodies of little children. Endless examples ...
I do not presume God exists and certainly do not presume He gave us free will. The why? question thus is not something that computes. I think if there is a god that could grant free will then I fully support that gesture.
I agree. If a God's creations do not have free will then there seems to be no point whatsoever.
God could teach us instantly if He desired to.
Free will is a consequence of a non-deterministic reality. Simply stated, God engineers reality so that the future is not predictable. Done. Free will exists.
Not following your logic here.
That does not make sense. If we have free will then God is not to blame for our bad actions (at least not 100% at fault). It is the absence of free will that makes God 100% responsible.
Right or wrong is an odd question. Given you are using the government, my immediate answer is no the government should not control us to an end they (human beings) consider to be good. But even if we apply this to God, I think it is wrong for a god to control a bunch of puppets - especially if their lives are unpleasant. That is sadistic and cruel IMO. It also seems to be entirely pointless.
Whose understanding is the true understanding? How can anyone claim to have the correct understanding of God? People cannot even agree on what God is.
I've shown you how this is an error several times. I don't understand why you persist.
Omniscience means knowing everything. So an omniscient entity would know all the infinite futures possible, depending on the choices made by free will.
There is no contradiction between free will and omniscience.
(Not that I contend that God is omniscient. That's way above my pay grade.
)
True. I maintain that it is. The reason we have disagreement is that we disagree on what constitutes effective communication and the method that word was meant to be understood. You, and Paine, seem to feel that for it to be effective, anyone who reads it should come to the same conclusion as anyone else. This is an unreasonable conclusion.
Take, for example, the story of the Good Samaritan. I think you would be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't understand the parable, yet you would find it easy to find people who would tell you of situations where that parable doesn't apply. You would find it easy to find people who say it applies in any situation. Why? Is it because the people don't understand the parable? If so, wouldn't it be because of their own assumptions, preferences and prejudices?
Point being, the word could be perfect in any language. How can you eliminate the human factor in it's interpretation? Apparently you, and Paine, feel that God's perfect word, if it could be put in human language perfectly, would overcome human fallibility. That is, the word may be perfect as is, in spite of it's various interpretations, but because we have free will, it get's distorted by our own desires. In fact, that's what happens.
But, the point is, effective communication results in the desired outcome, not necessarily perfect understanding. God wants us to come to salvation when it is offered. If that results, then effective communication has resulted.
You could say that, because it hasn't resulted in your salvation, your belief in God or Jesus, then that is proof that God's communication is ineffective. If it were effective, then you'd believe. However, God said in that same communication that there would be those who would not believe in spite of His word. But is that proof that Paine's argument is right or is it proof of free will on our behalf?
Correct. However, what do you consider incompatible? Seventh Day Adventists saying Saturday is the only correct day to worship and anyone who doesn't is going to Hell?
I personally don't believe they hold the truth on this subject. Neither does Paul in the book of Romans. Both views can't be right. So? What of it?
We have to ask the question, what is the goal of God's communication? Is it that we worship on the "correct" day or the salvation of our souls? The Seventh Day Adventist, as far as I know, see Jesus as their salvation. That I see their insistence of Saturday as the only day God desires to be worshipped as wrong is irrelevant besides that. Our salvation is dependent on Jesus, not correct interpretation of ever passage of the Bible. Seventh Day Adventists aren't wrong for worshipping on Saturday. If they are wrong, they are wrong for insisting everyone else is going to Hell for not doing so. But even so, they are still saved. And so are those who do not because where we are not incompatible is the belief that Jesus saves. That's what matters. Not inconsequential minutiae.
Um, well, yeah. I mean, the communication is supposed to have a purpose, isn't it? What is the point of communication if it doesn't result in some desired action?
No, the point, as per Paine, is that God's word cannot be contained in human language, and so, must be sought somewhere else.
Do you see? He isn't saying that it can or can't stand on it's own. He's saying it can't contain it at all.
My point is that God's word, what we are capable of understanding, can be contained in human language, but it requires an interpreter to understand it. Paine didn't believe this because he was a deist. He didn't believe in an interventionist God. Because he didn't, his argument is flawed.
Paine wasn't really arguing about whether or not the word could be contained in human language. He was actually arguing against an interventionist God.
Yes, it pretty much agrees with Paine's argument and yes I see. However, do you see that what Paine, and yourself, is saying is simply how you think it should be and not necessarily how it actually is?
God says, "Your thoughts are not my thoughts and your ways are not my ways." Surely you would agree this would be true of an infinite God. While we are made in God's image, surely you know from simple observation of the human species that we are not equal to God, even conceptually. Why is it so hard to accept that God could put His word into human language but necessitate an interpreter to interpret how He sees what He communicates?
Of course it does. Or do you believe what I believe is irrelevant to what I say?
My brother is coming over so I don't have much time. This caught my eye. Why would God's omniscience mean reality is deterministic? We know what Napoleon did with his life. Does that we know the choices he made mean that he could not have made any other choice than what he did? That is, does our knowing what he did eliminate the possibility of choice on his part? If not, why wouldn't that also be true of God?
Did you not read my rebuttals? It is not as if you left me speechless.
Seems reasonable to me. We are talking about God who is capable of doing anything He desires to do. So if God did choose natural language He could have engineered reality to ensure consistent interpretation. Clearly this is not the case and that fact (various interpretations) is part of Paine's factual basis.
You are agreeing with Paine's argument?
No, on the contrary, Paine argues that natural language is an ineffective (flawed, problematic) mechanism for communicating the Word of God. He posits that God would not use natural language to communicate something as important as His Word. (Note: based on the known fact that God did not do anything to mitigate human fallibility.)
I suspect Paine would agree with your distortion assessment (I certainly do). (disregarding 'because we have free will')
Drak, you know that Bible is not proof (to me) of anything. To me it is simply a book written by many ordinary men with agendas. I may be wrong, but that is my current assessment.
You offered one example. Here is a passage that I mentioned earlier:
Can you imagine people walking away with incompatible understandings of God's moral example? The Bible is replete with such passages.
A fine question. But who is answering? How many different answers? Which one is the truth?
I fully agree.
Aren't we saying the same thing. I think Paine would say, yes God clearly would have chosen an alternate method for communication. That is what I noted. Text, no ... maybe Spirit?
I am happy to go with Paine declaring natural language to be an ineffective way to communicate the Word of God. I thought I was working with you by blending in the Spirit but I can go with natural language being a loser.
My point is that God's word, what we are capable of understanding, can be contained in human language, but it requires an interpreter to understand it. Paine didn't believe this because he was a deist. He didn't believe in an interventionist God. Because he didn't, his argument is flawed.
Actually you are demonstrating agreement with his argument when you include an interpreter. That is a tacit admission that natural language alone does not work. That is what Paine argued. To correct the problem you have introduced an interpreter. But even more, actually, because this interpreter is correcting all the errors introduced by human beings over all time. So as the natural language representations evolve (and degrade, vary from the original Word) the interpreter is there to fix all the problems.
To wit, if we could ask Paine: " Hey Thomas, do you think representing the Bible in natural language would work if we ALSO included a perfect interpreter who dynamically corrected all the problems with the evolving text? " I think he might say something like: "Then there is no reason to bother with the natural language - just use the interpreter. Clearly the interpreter is what ultimately delivers the truth. The natural language text is entirely without value - it bears no necessary information - all information is known to the interpreter. ". I would agree (if that is what he said).
Well that is another discussion altogether.
It is simply a logical argument. If there is a God I would not presume to conclude this argument reveals the mind of God. I will posit that nobody knows the mind of God (or even if God exists). People at best hold beliefs ..
I was saying (again) that this article is about the argument - not about the belief system of the author. The argument is the focus. Assume we know nothing of the author and evaluate the argument on its own merits.
Glad you asked.
If omniscience is even possible that means reality is necessarily deterministic. This is by definition. If one knows what will happen then what will happen can be known. That means determinism.
So if God (or any other entity) is omniscient, reality is necessarily deterministic.
This is a very confused question. If reality is non-deterministic we would still have an accurate hindsight. So our ability to review recorded history tells us absolutely nothing about whether reality is deterministic or non-deterministic.
So, based upon the above, the answer is clearly 'no'.
Because omniscience is not strictly knowing the past. It is also knowing the future. A very different problem indeed.
No, I did not read them. I did not see them.
Would you please summarize?
Look above , I just addressed one aspect of this with Drak.
Your summary argument is this:
My summary rebuttal is this:
If the future is knowable (meaning reality is deterministic) then free will is an illusion. If it is possible to know (even if no entity is actually omniscient) what shirt you will wear tomorrow then the shirt you choose to wear tomorrow is determined.
Note the if . This applies only if the future is deterministic.
Finally, the key is having a deterministic reality. If any entity (God is the typical example but not the only example) is omniscient then reality ipso facto is deterministic and free will does not exist.
Question?
Doesn't this assume a single linear path for the future? What if there are infinite paths to the future and God is able to know each of the possibilities?
This does not preclude parallel paths (and all other complexities we might imagine). However, if reality is deterministic then each path is determined. Note: I am not arguing reality is deterministic, I am simply offering the consequences of determinism.
That is equivalent to saying that reality is non-deterministic but that God would know all the possible choices and the consequences of same. In that case two things would be true:
On 2, for clarity, when I let my dog out in the yard I know all the spots where he can choose to go. I do not know which spot he will choose.
The problem is in your use of the singular "the future". Free will means there are an infinity of possible futures, depending on the choices that may be made.
If an entity (God) knows all of those potential futures, then free will is not infringed. He knows the consequences of each free choice, so as choices are made (and random events occur) some "possible futures" evaporate, while others appear.
There is no contradiction between free will and omniscience.
There's a danger of setting definitions that determine a logical result that would not apply with different definitions. If your use of the singular is considered and intentional, then your conclusion does indeed follow... but it is only a very particular case rather than a general rule.
I addressed this Bob. Look at the comment before yours.
Knowing all the potential futures is not the same as knowing the future that will actually come to pass. Knowing all the potential futures does not necessarily mean reality is deterministic. The trick is knowing what choices will actually be made. If it is possible to know what choices will actually be made then reality is ipso facto deterministic.
I illustrated the problem. Note that your argument equivocates on the meaning of omniscience. You are arguing omniscience = knowing all the possible choices rather than omniscience = knowing the actual choices that will be made.
Hey, all I can do is suggest you read what I wrote.
OK then. But what about Free Will? Does that actually exist? Or is it a mere Fig Newton of our imagination-- a total delusion?
So we're in a "simple" semantic trap. If the the universe is deterministic then omniscience means knowing "the" future. If free will exists, then there is no singular future, so it cannot be known, even by an omniscient God. Something that does not exist... does not exist.
OK...
I don't think there's any way to know. I like to think we are free to decide... but it cannot be proven.
If there's no God, then I don't see any mechanism for rendering the universe deterministic. If there is a God, then I don't see why She would bother to create a deterministic universe - what's the point? OTOH, I don't pretend to understand God....
What I have been writing is different:
∴ An omniscient God precludes the possibility of free will
Presume there is no god. Demonstrably, existence IS so we have that. Everything then is a form of the quintessential substance of existence (whatever that might be).
What if this quintessential substance of existence behaves in a consistent fashion? If so, every form of existence (i.e. everything that exists) is simply an effect of a prior cause. State x of existence predicts state y of existence. An extremely complex causeation chain.
If quintessential existence is inconsistent, then existence itself is non-deterministic. (Existence is random.) If quintessential existence is consistent, then existence and all forms of existence (no matter how complex) is deterministic.
Note: Existence can be determninistic without having any entity who can understand the determinism. No observer is necessary. Determinism can be in effect even if no entity knows this to be true.
But wrong. It is equivocation on the meaning of the word 'omniscience'.
Simply knowing what is possible is not the same as knowing what will happen.
Since when is omniscience defined as 'knowing all the possibilities but not knowing which possibilities will actually occur'?
This is, it seems to me, circular reasoning. The dictionary says "knowing everything"... but something that does not exist (such as "the" future in a non-deterministic universe) is not "something". It is "nothing". So... Your chain of logic requires "nothing" to be "something".
If God is omniscient, then She knows what choices are possible, and their consequences. Knowing the players and the context, She probably has a pretty good idea of what the choice will be... but the same may be said of any person who knows the people involved. Having a human observer who is pretty sure how things will play out does not preordain that sequence. Why is God different?
Possibly. If we knew the laws of the universe well enough, and if we knew the situation at T1 well enough, would we always be able to predict T2 accurately? Or does chaos theory overwhelm predictions beyond an uninterestingly short interval?
We can predict the orbits of planets, but we're a long way from predicting human behavior. Is that because we don't know enough, or because "enough" is beyond infinite?
Functionally, the butterfly theory is real, but that may just measure our ignorance.
Personally, I see no way to clarify tthis question, other than to collect knowledge and observe to what degree we see less chaos.
True. But if what will happen is not yet determined it cannot be known. We can only know the idea that something will happen. It's nonsense to "know" something that doesn't exist.
Defining omniscience to include "the" future imposes determinism. But that's just semantics.
Your side claims we use "God works in mysterious ways" as an escape hatch. Well, I think this is an example of your escape hatch. "God could have..." Really? How do you know? What is your basis for saying so? By saying such, you are claiming that you would know better than God how God could have achieved His desired results. I think you still have this notion that God can do anything you can imagine. If so, we are not talking about the same God.
God can probably force someone to the correct interpretation of His word. In fact, I believe something like that will probably occur on the Day of Judgement. But I don't think He would do it before then, or not very often, because it destroys free will.
Instead, what I believe God does is lead people to the interpretation, or rather, enough of it to engender the desired result in the individual if they really wish to know God's will. God clearly doesn't expect total correct interpretation of the word any more than He expects us to be perfect in this life. It's why there's a thing called grace. The goal isn't perfect understanding or perfect interpretation. The goal is hearts turned toward God. if the written word achieves that, then successful communication has occurred.
If an individual doesn't turn toward God (which is the meaning of the word "repentance") how would you be able to distinguish between the failure of the written word and the failure of the recipient to accept it? Or is it that you believe if only God could communicate in the written word effectively then the individual would not be able to resist the message? If so, why?
Obviously not. Paine's ultimate point was that the Bible could be discarded because God would not use such an imprecise instrument to communicate His will. He said God's word must be found somewhere else. Going back to what I've already said several times, what makes the Bible work is that the Holy Spirit helps us to interpret what it says. That is the part Paine fails to understand because he was a deist. He didn't believe in such a thing.
To be clear, I do not disagree with what Paine said about human language, how words change over time and other such variables. What I disagree with is that God cannot communicate effectively with the written word.
You're missing the point. Even if human language did not have the problems Paine points out, it wouldn't make a difference. Not without the Holy Spirit. God's word was not intended to be understood without it.
You present this as an incompatibility. What is it incompatible with?
God did not tell them to do this as a moral example. That is, it wasn't an example of what should be done to enemies. This was God's judgment specifically on Amalek. It was God's utter rejection of their morals and society. God was destroying Amalek, using Israel as His instrument.
There are not nearly as many differences as you seem to be implying. You would be hard pressed to find someone who claims Christianity who would dispute the following statements:
You're not going to have an easy time finding someone who disagrees with these things. They are the core of Christianity. Everything else is mostly opinion and God has grace enough for those who get it wrong.
And for those who get it seriously wrong, say, we need to kill every living thing in the enemies country because it's in the Bible, well, the Bible covers that as well. You can tell a follower of Christ by what they do. Christ didn't do that, didn't suggest it or anything like it. So, no. What God did to Amalek would not confuse very many Christians.
That's nice. Prove it!
That doesn't exactly paint a glowing view of god.
If god is responsible for everything or the result of his will, then that statement would be false.
I think you are trying waaaaay too hard. That is really stretching things.
But, Bob, I will work with you. If you want to redefine omniscience to mean - 'knows everything that might happen but does not know what will happen' then let's call that omniscience bob .
Omniscience bob also has an adjective form: omniscient bob defined similarly.
With this framework in place, I will be happy to agree with this assertion:
If God is omniscient bob then free will is still possible.
We have no way of knowing if existence is deterministic or non-deterministic. All we can do is explore the consequences of hypotheses via thought experiments.
That nonsense is what we call predicting the future. And, as I noted in my prior comment, if God does not know what will happen then free will might still be possible. So if God is not omniscient (the general usage of the term - not the special usage you have offered) free will is not precluded.
Exactly!! I suspect if one asked religious people if God is all-knowing they would say 'yes'. If we stated that God is not capable of knowing the future I suspect they would object and state that God is not constrained by time - God knows past, present and future. I suspect they would reject your hobbled variant of divine omniscience.
No, I don't think we are. As I said, I understand Paine's point but still think it's wrong. I think it is pure brilliance that God would use something as imperfect as human language to contain His word. Since human language is an imperfect construct it cannot perfectly contain God's word. That much I can agree with if Paine had put it that way. But what makes it brilliant is that it's imperfection forces us to God in order to understand it.
Take the Apostles, for example. They were with the Person who created everything, themselves included. They were in Jesus' inner circle. They spent the entirety of Jesus' ministry with him and were in his confidence. Jesus told them things he didn't tell anyone else. Yet they were as clueless as ever other person. The only thing that distinguished them from the rest was their faith, imperfect as it was, was in Jesus completely.
I know you don't believe the Bible is what I think it is, yet you should be able to at least imagine that. The creator of the universe was right there with them and they still didn't understand. Not just who Jesus really was but what scripture said about him. They didn't begin to understand until they received the Holy Spirit at Pentecost.
So, the obvious question is, why a need for the Bible at all, then? Why doesn't the Holy Spirit just tell us what He wants us to know without having to fool with something so imprecise as God's word in human language? Well, that's the brilliance of it, in my opinion.
It forces one to think! Love your neighbor. What does that mean? What does it look like? Am I doing it because I think it makes me righteous before God or because I actually care about that person? What does my resistance to loving someone I find unlovable say about me and how I see myself in this world and before God? A thousand questions. And the whole time the Holy Spirit is there, not giving the answers directly but guiding.
But more than that, it provides a standard to keep us from going too far astray. Keeps us from painting God into something that suits our own desires.
It is not tacit. I actually said as much. But it is not agreement with his argument. His argument isn't about whether or not natural human language is flawed or not. His argument is whether God would use it to communicate His word. Surely you see this?
No, it isn't. He didn't argue that natural language alone does not work. He argued that it can't work and that God would not use it.
I'm not sure what you consider errors. To my mind, that would consist of what word a translation chooses to use in any particular point in the sentence of the verse. Definitely a problem, but again, that's part of the genius of it all. someone who truly wants to know will dig and dig and dig. And I am convinced that is what God wants. Not someone who shallowly reads a verse and tries to apply it without any real understanding. It's learning to think the way God does. and that is very different from our natural way of thinking.
Too simplistic for what actually happens. I don't believe the Holy Spirit's primary goal is a perfect academic translation of the word. That doesn't guarantee actual understanding that creates change within a person. Any serious student of the Bible who studies for the purpose of growing closer to God knows the problems inherent in translations. It is more than just the change in meaning of a word over time. It is also taking into account the mindset of the culture to which those words were written. More thinking!
So, to me, when you say "fix all the problems", I think about whether that was actually the right word to use in this verse of this translation or not. I compare them to other translations and compare that to the Bible over all. And while I quite often don't arrive at any particular conclusion at the moment, it's there and may resolve itself sometime in the future with more study.
And through it all, the Holy Spirit doesn't seem to say, "this one is right" but rather, "okay, but what about..." and makes me think more.
Problem is, is that actually the best way or is it just how Paine thinks it should be? If we went with Paine's desire, no actual effort is required on our part. The impartation of information would simply be academic and we don't even have to understand it. I can assure you that God is probably okay with simple obedience but He's ecstatic with obedience that comes from a sincere, understanding heart.
For instance, someone who does the Good Samaritan thing because it's in the Bible and so that's what we're supposed to do is probably okay, maybe, but someone who does it because they see that the victim is a person in need of genuine love and compassion, regardless of whatever reward God may have for such an act probably makes God sing.
Yes, it is. However, that it is logical doesn't mean it is correct.
I understand that, but if you think Paine's belief system doesn't inform his argument you are deluding yourself. It has to be taken into account. What you are asking me to do is ignore what I believe to be true, restrict myself to what you believe and argue from there. Not gonna happen.
You appear to have an incorrect understanding of determinism.
Determinism on God's part would be God forcing one to make the choice they make, in essence, removing actual choice and free will. You are trying to claim that God knowing what choices we will make is the same as God making us make that choice. This doesn't follow.
Nor does the future being knowable to God make your case. I understand perfectly why you think so, but it isn't correct. Let's look at this statement you made.
The first problem with it is that it's a statement. There is no supporting reasoning to lead us to your conclusion.
The second is that it doesn't actually show any determinism. In order for determinism to be valid, some outside force has to eliminate your choice in what shirt you wear at that moment.
Think about a film being made. You are essentially arguing that it is impossible for that film to have been anything other than what moviegoers view because the film the moviegoers viewed determined what was in the film.
I am going by your definition of God. You said God can do whatever He desires. If your statement is correct, my statement is correct.
That is well beyond what I wrote. My statement is simple logic:
Are you saying that God is incapable of engineering reality to ensure consistent interpretation?
How is my statement of logic in any way a claim that I know better than God? You are rewriting my words in your mind because I did not write anything like that.
I could say so many things in response to this, but I will not. I will simply ask 'how could you possibly know this'?
God obviously can make the distinction since God is omniscient (per definition).
I hold no such belief.
I keep making this point but you do not acknowledge it. If the Bible cannot do the job on its own -requiring the Holy Spirit- to interpret then what value is the Bible? Just use the Holy Spirit. By recognizing the weakness of the Bible (a natural language representation of God's Word) you are agreeing with the point Paine has made.
But Drak, when you say that God requires the Holy Spirit to interpret the written word you ipso facto agree that God cannot (or at least has not) communicate effectively with the written word alone . It must be supplemented with something else. The Bible alone is insufficient. The alone qualification is Paine's point. You are, in effect, acknowledging that.
What point am I missing? I am repeating your position on the Holy Spirit and then rebutting your logic. What point did I miss. Yes, I do not agree with your logic but that is not the same as missing the point.
Nothing if you wish to argue that gratuitous slaughter of infants is moral consistency for God. That this is the kind of moral lesson God intends to impart.
You are giving an excuse for the gratuitous slaughter of infants?? Also, how do you know this was not a moral example? Also, this is a moral example the same way a father beating his wife is a moral example for his young son.
There are not nearly as many differences as you seem to be implying.
I disagree. There are far more differences than you imply.
I have not argued that there is no agreement Drak. Giving an example of a few points of agreement among Christians is not an argument that the Bible is not widely interpreted in very inconsistent ways among Christians. And then we have all the non-Christians and their interpretations. I do not think it is possible to honestly claim the Bible is not widely misinterpreted.
Seems to me Christians should be confused right off the bat. On one hand they have a (highly simplified) image of Jesus and the God of Love. On the other hand they have the vain, vengeful, emotional, warlord Yahweh engaging in all forms of violence. If one considers Yahweh and Jesus to be the same God then short of mentally ignoring Yahweh's actions it seems logically impossible to reconcile. Look what you just did, you basically are downplaying Yahweh's bad behavior by stating that Jesus clearly would not kill infants so pay no attention to that God behind the curtain.
Of course.
That is not my point. How disappointing after all this time. I explained this very well and repeatedly. No, that is not the point I have made.
The statement is a tautology stated as an assertion. 'possible to know (future)' = 'future determined'. If the future is not determined then it is not possible to know the future until it happens. You disagree with that?? You do not recognize a tautology? It is like saying: if I do not know your name I cannot reference you by name (barring luck).
The outside 'force' (if you will) is all of reality - existence itself. Why is that not obvious? Determinism is very simple - it is pure causality.
The above proves that you actually do not understand my point (or logic). The above statement does not even follow from what I have laid out. I am not essentially arguing anything of the sort.
So how should I proceed? You are rebutting an argument that I have not made.
I will try this approach. One step at a time.
1. For the future to be known, the future must be knowable.
This is (essentially) a tautology. It simply states that a knowable future is required to have the possibility of knowing the future.
Note: there is no mention of God here. No mention of free will or anything else. This is simply a statement -true by definition- that serves as premise 1 of an argument. Possibility to know the future = a future that is knowable.
Also, the future mentioned here is not limited in complexity. The future may indeed be multiple parallel futures which fork out into every possible consequence of every possible choice (either sentient choice or 'choice' of physics). No restrictions on complexity or form.
Do you agree with 1. ?
(see 1.1.53 )
That's a cheap-shot.
Your definition of omniscience, including "knowing the nonexistant", needs a TiG subscript at least as much as mine needs bob.
Would omniscienceTiG also include knowing the value of imaginary numbers, the sexuality of unicorns and other non-existent stuff? "What will happen" is a unicorn. Doesn't exist. Can't be known.
I am not "redefining", any more than you are. If the universe is deterministic, then your definition applies. If not, then mine.
Are you really equating "predicting" and "knowing"? Kinda risky, I think. There are a lot of people who predict, without knowing anything at all.
--
Are you really setting "what religious people think" as your standard for "what is true"? Seriously? Are these the same religious people whom you often eviscerate for their inerrantism?
You redefined omniscience.
That is not how I defined omniscience. Bob? I would like to think that you just now made an honest mistake because you came up with that definition and attributed it to me. My definition of omniscience is very simple: 'all knowing' as religious people interpret that phrase. Biblically, God is said to know everything: past, present and future. I did not make that up. Further, go to Oxford reference and see what they say:
Note the reference to reconciling the orthodox view of knowing everything with the absence of predetermination. Note how here they even mention the free will problem that I have been describing.
... and Oxford dictionary ...
Again, note no qualifications (your definition introduced qualifications). This definition is as general as it gets. Everything is an extremely wide scope. One would expect qualification to explicitly exclude knowledge of the future if that was not allowed in omniscience. Not there. Omniscience TiG = Omnsicience Oxford .
... then biblically, it is rather common for religious individuals to hold omniscience as all-knowing, without qualification. Verses like this support this belief:
Finally, let's see how many strong Christians hold the belief that God's omniscience is limited - that God actually does not know what is going to happen. This is important because the context of this sub-discussion on free will is the biblical God.
Omniscience TiG = Omniscience Biblical
In short, do not accuse me of dishonest tactics. Especially when I am not the one introducing special meanings of common words.
Bob, you are resorting to strawman arguments.
What religous people think is part of the context. This discussion presumes the God of the Bible exists and we are exploring the consequences of omniscience. I do not accept that you did not realize that.
So, in short, I prefer you not continue with this form of 'debate' because the discussion has quickly turned ugly and I am not interested in dealing with where this will likely go.
I don't see the brilliance here Drak. To me this is justification. Note that to skeptics you are arguing that the lack of a consistent interpretation of the Bible is a stroke of genius because it requires people to think but in the same breath claim it offers a standard and prevents people from, in effect, dreaming up their own God. A very strange thing to read. Typically vague, inconsistent, errant language is a net negative to learning.
It is actually both. In the most succinct form, he argues that God would not use natural language to communicate something as important as His Word due to the flaws of natural language (and in particular the effects of evolution).
What distinction are you making? The context of my statement is that Paine stated that natural language does not work. Also, I have already stated that we cannot know what he thought of natural language + divine interpreter. We can only infer. Splitting hairs? The point has always been the argument that natural language is ineffective and that God would know it is ineffective and would not commit his Word to natural language. You introduced an interpreter and I suggested, accordingly, that with an interpreter there is no need for natural language. Indeed, natural language (being vague, errant, etc.) is a hindrence. Just go with the interpreter and be done with it.
I'm not sure what you consider errors. To my mind, that would consist of what word a translation chooses to use in any particular point in the sentence of the verse. Definitely a problem, but again, that's part of the genius of it all.
Let's not debate biblical errancy. You accept errors exist in the Bible so let's just run with that. Also, again, what you label as genius is, to me (and to Paine), a profound flaw.
What actually happens? You know what actually happens?
Is the Holy Spirit a perfect translator or not? Let's clear up at least this part.
Paine is not part of this aspect, it is just you and I. To me this is obvious. If the interpreter is going to offer meaning of the natural language representation of scripture then that meaning will be perfect. If the meaning is imperfect then that is a real problem, right? If the meaning is perfect then obviously the interpreter already has the perfect knowledge and does not even need the scripture. The scripture in writing was vague and misleading. Why go this route (asking questions based upon faulty interpretations) when all can be revealed in pieces via the interpreter? Makes no sense Drak.
You really think God could not figure out how to impart information in layers and encourage deep thinking??
Which premises are wrong? Where is the logic wrong? That is, in what way is this argument unsound?:
∴ the Word of God -even if initially represented perfectly in natural language- will quickly degrade and be imperfect. It will no longer be the Word of God.
That is your choice, but you are then playing games with the argument rather than analyzing the argument on its own merits (which is the purpose of this article). As I have noted, the argument in and of itself does not require any knowledge of Paine's belief system. Nor does it require you to believe what I hold true.
You say "my definition", but then you invoke "religious people"... whose thinking you elsewhere spend a great deal of time disproving! Which is it? Are "religious people" authoritative, or not? I am asking you if omniscience TiG includes knowing all about stuff that does not exist... knowing thoughts that have not been thought... knowing the sexuality of unicorns?
It seems to me that such a definition of omniscience leads quickly to logical incoherence, so I am surprised that you defend it.
--
The Oxford excerpt is a good summary, but does not resolve anything. "To many thinkers it has seemed that if God knows, already, what will happen tomorrow, then human free will and responsibility must be a mere sham." Again, the singular "what will happen" conditions the conclusion. The Oxford excerpt carefully does not take any position.
--
Omniscience TiG = Omniscience Biblical
This certainly seems true... but it surprises me very much! Are you saying that you consider the Bible authoritative on this topic? I doubt that! In other instances, you spend a great deal of time and energy debunking the Bible, but you are agreeing here? No. Surely not.
So TiG does not agree with Omniscience TiG ! That's kinda sorta like a straw man...
If all you're trying to prove here is that "religious people" often don't think very deeply about their religion... then we agree!
Omnisicience and free will in this article has always been under the context of religion. In that context, omniscience = 'all knowing'. No special qualifications. And that means knowing past, present and future.
Under that common definition (as evidenced by Oxford and religious interpretation), if omniscience is possible then free will is not. That is my argument and it is expressed quite clearly several times.
You demand that I use your special qualified definition for omniscience. Per your definition, omniscience = 'all knowing - except what will actually happen in the future'. Under that special definition, the presence of omniscience does not preclude free will.
Now. My argument was made using the common (and religious) definition of omniscience. If you force substitute your definition of omniscience into my argument the result is not my argument.
You didn't quote me. You quoted TiG.
He could not tell, those words were not quoted in your post.
If Gordy knew that was from me he would have recognized the implicit qualification of ' as many religious people see things '.
Not at all. Obviously, you'll use whatever definition you desire. I was pointing out that your definition conditions your conclusion, and that a different definition leads to a different conclusion.
Thus... it seems to me... the topic should be more open than you wish it to be. But now I'm repeating myself, so I'll desist.
It is impossible for human beings to not experience free will. This is the case whether God knows the future or not.
That fact trumps all your arguments to the contrary.
Not only do I fully agree, I made the very same observation.
Do you mean a broader scope? Note that our exchanges emanate from your opening claim that my logic was wrong. My response was to defend my logic. That lead to a declaration that I was using the wrong definition for the term 'omniscience' and then to my wonted illustration that 'my' definition is the most common definition (arguably default) and also the one most appropriate in the context of religious views (and this argument is in the context of religious views).
To wit, our disagreement seemed to be the meaning of the word 'omniscience'. Other than running the argument for both definitions of the word (which I did) what would you like to see to make the topic more open?
That is not a premise, it is a conclusion. To claim this as a fact you would first need to establish it as such.
What is your agument that yields the conclusion that free will is necessarily in operation for human beings?
This also is a conclusion that requires a supporting argument.
"Other than?" Nothing. It seems to me that your omnisciencebiblical leads very quickly to absurdities. Since you ascribed this definition to "religious people" (which I "translated" as "fundamentalists"), I tried to imagine discussing "omniscience" with a fundy. I think I would use the "knows everything means knowing things that are impossible" approach. The location of Atlantis. Where Osiris is today. I would try to obtain a definition of omniscience that is more reasonable, such as "what is and what might (actually) be".
Then a discussion of "Does this change lessen God, or does it make Him more real? Why?"...
If God knows the future, then that future is set in stone. therefore, there is no possible "choice" we can make which will alter that future. Our choices are set in stone whether we realize it or not and therefore, prohibits free will.
That is not a fact. That is only your conclusion based on a flawed premise.
Correct.
IN fact the holiest books of all religions have contradictions-- therefore, none of them contain the exact words of any god. With one exception: The Holy Koran.
Other religions passed down these things in written form, and of course mistakes could be made by scribes. Mistakes that are magnified in each successive generation!
However the Holy Koran is unique in that it has been handed down orally (devout Muslims memorize the entire Koran so that no mistakes can be made)-- so that every word in The Holy Koran is the exact word of Allah!
I am laughing with you?
the true Word of God cannot possibly be represented in the form of natural language.
This may be the reason why god always seems to speak through others (ie: Moses, Noah etc.) and not directly to the masses. Though it has admittedly been some time, Adam seems to be the last direct contact with humans, god seems to use representatives after that point. But as I said it has been a bit.
I wonder if God is pleased with some of his representatives. Among those claiming to speak directly with God are the likes of Kenneth Copeland. Apparently people have a hard time distinguishing the true representatives from the false. Seems like an execution problem.
God definitely needs to hire a better quality assurance team.
and a much better marketing team to spread the "good word"
I believe the conscience is what many others refer to as "The Holy spirit" mine talks to me in a language I understand.
I also believe IF GOD wanted a written rule book GOD would have provided one itself and not left it up to fallible men to do so.
I have read the old testament, the new testament, the Book of Mormon and parts of the Koran, all seem to me more writings of controlling others more that anything.
Yes there are many good stories and many valuable lessons but written by GOD... Sorry all religious books ever written were written by men.
Agreed, holding an ancient book divine is ill-advised.
And, to be blunt, just plain idiotic.
Well to be a little less blunt, it certainly defies the evidence. People go through extraordinary mental gyrations to hold the Bible divine in spite of its obvious contradictions. It is that quality of human cognition -the ability to make excuses for a desired belief- that is most responsible IMO for the existence of religious beliefs in modern times.
Yup-- "Confirmation Bias":
(Obviously if you're looking for information re: any particular subject and are only willing to accept that which confirms your pre-existing beliefs-- your conclusions will be biased (inaccurate).
Maybe not ! The Fact is if a Person came forward and said they had spoken with God they would be called a Con Artist, or Crazy.
Unless the claim could be tested using third party verification. There are uncountable numbers of people claiming to speak with God but not a single one has been formally verified. The formal verification can take place in many ways but one obvious method is to have the claimer reveal information (in a controlled setting) that no human being could possibly know and then verify that the information is true. For example, if the individual states that God will reveal a new star (one we have never observed) at a specific right ascension, declination and epoch that would be positive evidence of the claim (not proof of course, but profoundly beyond any evidence recorded for all of time).
And rightfully so. Of course, many people are all too willing to accept claims that someone speaks to god, especially if they're in a position of authority.
One example would be Moses, he had visions of future events that were so powerful that he led his people from Egypt knowing that the pharaoh couldn't follow. His planning for escape by using the tactic of war of the pillar of smoke during the day and pillar of fire at night that is always deployed in the direction the army is heading to deceive the pharaoh while the people were escaping the other direction across the reed sea, but the amazing thing is the foresight and knowing that conditions at that particular time would happen long enough for them to escape. There are other examples throughout the bible.
Sans supporting evidence to the contrary, Moses is merely a character in a story written by ancient men with pens.
To use the Bible as evidence one must first establish that the Bible is factual. Note that the authors of the Bible had the ability to write whatever they wished. They could make prophecies in one part that are ostensibly realized in a later part.
The formal evidence I was alluding to would be contemporary evidence with human beings who demonstrably exist and who communicate events in the present that can be verified when they actually occur in the future. No chance for poetic license or gaming the system - independently verified formal evidence. With all the people claiming to communicate with the grandest possible entity we should have countless verified examples.
In most cases yes-- that's the prevailing view in much (most?) of our society.
Of course many people call all sorts of other people various things-- but that doesn't necessarily make their accusations true!
(Perhaps 50 million Frenchman can be wrong after all??? {To coin a phrase}):
Sophie tucker 50 Million Frenchmen Can't Be Wrong
from an old 1929-30 78 record
Color me crazy!
As I mentioned before, I talk to Him all of the time. He doesn't reveal to me about new stars, earthquakes, etc. So, you and yours would be totally uninterested.
I am sure most everyone believes you when you say you pray to God. It is the part where God speaks back that is most interesting. That has never been formally, independently evidenced and -based on the sheer number of people praying and the complete lack of formal third party verification of an answer- I tend to think it never will be evidenced.
I don't just pray.....I talk.
Evidenced? Probably, not. But, do I care? Assuredly, not.
Talking to oneself might be indicative of a problem.
LOL Talking "to myself" is how I come up with the solutions to my problems.
Whether or not you care if God's direct communication to select individuals is real or simply human imagination is not the topic. The topical question is the likelihood of a god using something as error prone and static as natural language to communicate with His creations.
Thats not so much talking to yourself as it is "thinking out loud."
SHhh.. Dont tell my alter ego. It wants equal status.
Keep it on the down low, got it. Lol
"Never" is a strong word...
Of course its all speculation. In the words of one of my personal gurus-- in fact a man who is a very famous yogi:
“It's tough to make predictions, especially about the future.”
--Yogi Berra
(Actually this bring up what I think may be an important principle. Namely, just because something has not yet proven to exist does not mean it doesn't exist).
have you ever asked ?
Indeed.
As it is written:
Ask, and it shall be given you; seek, and ye shall find; knock, and it shall be opened unto you
(Mathew 7:7)
BTW, how do you know God wouldn't use natural language? He would use whatever language I could understand.
Did you read more than just the title? This article presents Thomas Paine's argument. The title is his conclusion.
Nobody knows God would not use natural language. To ascertain that one would first have to verify God (by some definition) exists and then somehow ask Him to set the record straight.
Having never spoken with God, I can provide no direct testimony. I can imagine God speaking in any way She wishes: verbally, mind-to-mind, in ordinary language or in haiku. I would not presume to circumscribe God's actions.
OTOH... I would be skeptical of the person who claims to have spoken with God... and twice as skeptical of the transcript.
Paine is not presuming what God would do but rather argues that the Bible (and other holy books) which use natural language logically cannot work over time. God could still choose to place His (or Her) Word on paper to be mangled by human beings to the point of incoherence.
Rightly so. It is hearsay.
How are "Holy texts" any different than other texts? No one would think of reading Beowulf without its cultural and historical context. Nor Homer's books.
Any text has the same problem. It stays the same while the world keeps turning. Chaucer's tales are eternal, but his "English" is so different from ours as to be illegible.
Why spotlight the Bible? (Granted, there are lots of idiots who want to believe that Jesus spoke Elizabethan English, but that’s on them. It's not the Bible's fault.
)
Some people designate certain religious-oriented books as 'holy'.
Correct.
Paine included the other holy books such as the Qur'an in his argument. In the USA we tend to focus on the Bible since the vast majority of the religious here are Christian.
I wasn't clear.
Why spotlight the Bible among the many ancient texts, both "holy" and secular, that we have conserved? Chaucer certainly isn't holy, but the same problems apply.
The idiots who misuse any book are fair game, but it's silly to blame the book.
Paine uses the Bible as his main example for obvious reasons but he does not limit his focus exclusively to the Bible.
Now, on the other aspect, holy books are the focus because they are ostensibly the Word of the grandest possible author. Chaucer is hardly comparable.
Who is blaming a book?? That is not Paine's argument. He is saying that any use of recorded natural language will not serve as a medium for God's Word over time.
And I am saying that any use of recorded natural language will not serve as a medium for ANYONE'S word over time. As soon as a text, any text by any author, is old enough, it becomes unintelligible.
So why specify the Bible, or "holy texts"?
I understand that Bob. Also, I clearly agree.
I have answered this several times. Not sure what else to say. What are you looking for?
Answer: Because the topic is about using holy books written in natural language to convey the divine Word of the most supreme possible entity. Many people use these books to guide their lives. That makes the veracity of these books significantly more important than other books.
I need you to explain the disconnect, because at this point I have no idea why this is unclear.
Oh, dear...
I only just now realized that this text was from THE Thomas Paine. I had thought it a modern indirect attack on Belief. O-o-o-p-s......
So.. I followed the link and read the whole text.
Smart guy, Paine.....
Why does it matter who offered the argument? The argument is what matters (at least in this article).
I suspected an indirect attack on Belief / Faith. Severe anachronism...
One should always be skeptical of reports of that sort of phenomena.
Although it should be kept in mind that ineffable experiences are by definition , usually not believable by anyone who has not yet experienced them
Ineffable - see def. 1 HERE . . .
For those who would like to delve deeper into this concept, here's a much more thorough description of "ineffable":
The Attributes of Mystical Experience
3.1 Ineffability
William James, (James, 1958, 292–93) deemed “ineffability” or indescribability an essential mark of the mystical.
[...]
An example of unsaying can be found in the endless negations in some Madyamika and Zen Buddhist meditative consciousness. Since the truth about reality – as it is – lies outside of our conceptualizations of it, we cannot say that truth, only experience it.
______________________________________________________
Or, to put it in plain English:
You'd have to have been there!
If God exists and the Bible is the inerrant word of God, containing something universal and unchanging across every language barrier, then it should contain something truly profound like this:
But of course it doesn't, because the Bible is the totally errant words of people during late antiquity, not the words (or even inspired words) of some kind of omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent creator god, which only exists in people's heads.
If an equation like that was actually written into the Bible it would be a very strong argument in God's favor. Something like that would have been completely alien to people in late antiquity. People would have been scratching their heads for centuries, if not millenia trying to decipher it, and when they finally did it would have been Earth-shattering.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in the Bible that was completely alien to the people of the time it was written. Not one damn thing. No extraordinary knowledge that could only have come from somewhere else (as in, not of the world at the time), and that's pretty good evidence that the Bible is in fact not holy, but wholly of this Earth. More specifically, and like every other religious text in history, wholly of the minds and imaginations of human beings .
But consider this possibility: even if you assume that a "god" does not exist (and therefore the words in any holy book therefore cannot be the words of any "god")-- does that necessarily imply that there's no validity to them?
The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science. - Albert Einstein
Consider the possibility that he may be aware of something that most of us are not aware of. (And I'm not sure I'm willing to accept the notion that he was not a rational, and very logical, thinker).
More comments by Al on the nature of the Universe:
"The most beautiful thing we can experience is the mysterious. It is the source of all true art and all science." - Albert Einstein
"Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind." - Albert Einstein
"I want to know God's thoughts...the rest are details." - Albert Einstein
"Strange is our situation here upon this earth. Each of us comes for a short visit, not knowing why, yet sometimes seeming to a divine purpose." - Albert Einstein
"When the solution is simple, God is answering." - Albert Einstein
"Human beings, vegetables, or cosmic dust, we all dance to a mysterious tune intoned in the distance by an invisible player." - Albert Einstein
Speaking for myself, I am not yet at the point where I am totally willing to accept the claim that people on NT are better informed of the true nature of the Universe than Einstein.... no matter what arguments they tend to make!!!
(And then there are those on NT attempting to disprove the existence of a "Higher Power" using what they claim to be "Science". Which raises the question-- are these folks more informed, and better understanding, of Scientific principles than good 'Ole Uncle Al?.....maybe yes, maybe no...)
OK, but why then there are so many different interpretations between different sects?
Well...um...let me think about that a minute....
OK-- I've got it! Simple: because only one Islamic sect is authentic-- they know the real true mean of The Holy Koran...the others are fools..and blasphemers... and worse yet..heretics!
Other Islamic sects are unholy INFIDELS-- OFF WITH THEIR HEADS!