free will vs omniscience

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER, I've been following this thread, and though I don't exacly agree with you...You have been fun to watch. One question though.... it seems to me that you view your faith as the alternative to all the questions that you/science cannot answer. Is this the case yo?

To a large extent, but even faith does not necessarily "answer" all the questions. And often faith and science have to work together.

And by that, I would say that even "atheism" is still a "faith", though one that does not look to a "higher power". Deciding that everything is "ruled" (as in natural laws, not Godly rules) by logic is itself a statement of belief.

[Neoteny]

So far, I haven't found anything that out of the range of logic, and I don't expect parenting to be that much of a shock. Kids are around. It's not shit that I'm not used to.

Do yourself a favor and SAVE YOUR COMMENT!!! It will give you great amusement in years to come ... I promise!

Your "weaknesses" in logic just aren't readily apparent to me, so I can't see your perspective on this. I get the idea that because we can imagine "logic," we imagine there is "stuff outside of logic." That's an assumption you can't prove, and one that fails to live up to a parsimonious worldview, much like god.

Well, actually we can prove there is stuff outside of logic ... but I think this thread has gone on about enough, at least for now.

Chuckle all you want. We have completely different perspectives on these things; you can't apply your thought process to mine.

[polarbeast23]

Well, actually we can prove there is stuff outside of logic ...

Yes, indeed, you seem to be actual living proof of the illogical.

[Juan_Bottom]

PLAYER, I've been following this thread, and though I don't exacly agree with you...You have been fun to watch. One question though.... it seems to me that you view your faith as the alternative to all the questions that you/science cannot answer. Is this the case yo?

To a large extent, but even faith does not necessarily "answer" all the questions. And often faith and science have to work together.

And by that, I would say that even "atheism" is still a "faith", though one that does not look to a "higher power". Deciding that everything is "ruled" (as in natural laws, not Godly rules) by logic is itself a statement of belief.

Wha? I was asking a question, and you replied with more than I wanted to hear. I never said anything is ruled by logic(except my viewpoint) space-time sure doesn't seem to be(yet?). I want as much info as possible before I'll draw any conclusions. There is a lot humankind doesn't yet understand. But to just say, "God makes it work" is stupid. How 'bout I get out the ol' telescope and give things a closer look instead?

& Faith and science need only work together for the religious.
I don't know how a microwave oven works, but I don't believe Angel Breath warms up the food.

[heavycola]

It is one thing to question and debate things in the light of day, when we are warm, dry and comfortable. Take away much of that ... and the human mind seeks comfort. Many times that does come from belief in God, in religion. There is nothing logical about it .. it is pure human need.

Well this, I agree with. It's one huge reason behind religious faith - insecurity. 'Pure human need' to believe that life isn't nasty, brutish and short, as it were.

No, i don't think everyone in germany believed the extermination of jews was 'logical', or that I or anyone here would have agreed with hitler. I don't know what you're talking about anymore, player - you are confusing subjective experience with one of the basic tools we have found that seeks to nullify that.

This thread is about a fundamental paradox - you are arguing that there is no such thing as paradoxes, because god's existence explains away every problem. It's a crap argument, frankly - the result, perhaps, of a 'basic human need' to quietly ignore any challenges to one's comfortable, La-Z-boy thinking.

[PLAYER57832]

It is one thing to question and debate things in the light of day, when we are warm, dry and comfortable. Take away much of that ... and the human mind seeks comfort. Many times that does come from belief in God, in religion. There is nothing logical about it .. it is pure human need.

Well this, I agree with. It's one huge reason behind religious faith - insecurity. 'Pure human need' to believe that life isn't nasty, brutish and short, as it were.

No, i don't think everyone in germany believed the extermination of jews was 'logical', or that I or anyone here would have agreed with hitler.

Neither do I, I spoke specifically of the Nazis leadership. And, though certainly many did see the fault in Hitler (ergo the active resistance), if you were alive at the time, you would have found it hard to think differently. That is why Hitler was so very, very dangerous. I have relatives that were in an occupied country and the spoke of listening to the radio, hearing Hitler and thinking "gee, that makes sense". Of course, once they turned the radio off ... they did not think that, but it is WAY, WAY too easy to sit here in the 21rst century and say "I would/would not" do that.

And THAT is part of my point ... that just because someone thinks something is logical ... or illogical, does not make it so.

[I don't know what you're talking about anymore, player - you are confusing subjective experience with one of the basic tools we have found that seeks to nullify that.

Not confusing. Saying they are, for humans, inextricable. We like to pretend otherwise often, but it is not so. Our perception of logic is inextricably mixed with our subjective experiences.

Now, as a scientist, I say that we HAVE contructed "rules" and methods to try and get around that subjectivity as much as possible, but it is still, always there. And to deny that is to make some of the greatest errors in logic possible, because if you ignore those inherant biases in just about everything (very, very few exceptions -- and those are mostly definitions), then you cannot correct for them, cannot work around them.

This is ironically, the error that Jay makes. He starts with the assumption that Those first few verses in Genesis must be taken to mean that God made the world in 6 revolutions of the earth and that he "snapped his fingers" (figuratively) and "poof" there was everything! Because he starts with that assumption, he is incapable of acknowledging or even seeing anything different.

Now, it is easy for you to see his fallacies, because they are not your own. I am just saying that you, too, have fallacies. Part of a good science education, critical thinking education and logical education is to teach people how to get around those biases that DO exist.

This thread is about a fundamental paradox - you are arguing that there is no such thing as paradoxes, because god's existence explains away every problem.

No, I speak only of one idea that you seem to think must be a paradox, but I don't. And I say that the fact that you, some others, cannot see how God can be omniscient and give us free will is not enough to make it an undisputable paradox. I feel the two can coexist, it makes fully logical sense to me, but convincing you is something else entirely.

By-the-way, logic defines a paradox as something that cannot be, so if it occurs .. .it is, by defnition not a paradox.

It's a crap argument, frankly - the result, perhaps, of a 'basic human need' to quietly ignore any challenges to one's comfortable, La-Z-boy thinking.

I don't ignore the challanges, by any means. But, like most deep religious issues, believing/convincing myself and convincing someone who does not wish to believe are two different things.

I never claim I can prove that God exists, is omniscient ... I say I believe that. BUT, what I am saying is that you cannot prove my beliefs false. Since you cannot prove them false, calling them "illogical" and so forth is rather narrow minded and, frankly, illogical.

If you cannot prove it false, it might well be true. And simply saying "I define things this way" is plain not using good, real, logic..... It is the route to deception and misundertanding.

Sure, if you define Ominiscience as something inconsistant with free will ... then sure, you will never admit that they can co-exist. BUT that is your definition. That is not how Christians define Omniscience and free will.

[PLAYER57832]

PLAYER, I've been following this thread, and though I don't exacly agree with you...You have been fun to watch. One question though.... it seems to me that you view your faith as the alternative to all the questions that you/science cannot answer. Is this the case yo?

To a large extent, but even faith does not necessarily "answer" all the questions. And often faith and science have to work together.

And by that, I would say that even "atheism" is still a "faith", though one that does not look to a "higher power". Deciding that everything is "ruled" (as in natural laws, not Godly rules) by logic is itself a statement of belief.

Wha? I was asking a question, and you replied with more than I wanted to hear. I never said anything is ruled by logic(except my viewpoint) space-time sure doesn't seem to be(yet?). I want as much info as possible before I'll draw any conclusions. There is a lot humankind doesn't yet understand. But to just say, "God makes it work" is stupid. How 'bout I get out the ol' telescope and give things a closer look instead?

& Faith and science need only work together for the religious.
I don't know how a microwave oven works, but I don't believe Angel Breath warms up the food.

The short answer to your question is "yes" .. faith takes over where science and logic end.

But, when I said that athiesm is a kind of faith, what I mean is that some people feel that logic/science can and will discover everything. Some people do not. Some people feel that there will always be some "unkown".

Also, many athiests go further, and insist that what they see as logic must be true. Those can actually be dangerous, because they will be very slow to see any errors. (some religious people do this, too, of course).

[MeDeFe]

This thread is about a fundamental paradox - you are arguing that there is no such thing as paradoxes, because god's existence explains away every problem.

No, I speak only of one idea that you seem to think must be a paradox, but I don't. And I say that the fact that you, some others, cannot see how God can be omniscient and give us free will is not enough to make it an undisputable paradox. I feel the two can coexist, it makes fully logical sense to me, but convincing you is something else entirely.

By-the-way, logic defines a paradox as something that cannot be, so if it occurs .. .it is, by defnition not a paradox.

So you claim free will and an omniscient god both exist and therefor the existence of both can't be a paradox, that sounds like circular reasoning to me. Tzor is the only one so far to get halfway out of the paradox by putting god completely outside our universe in a parallell one, but then it becomes quite hard to see how he can intervene with this one at all.



And what's so biased about, for example, this:

a -> b
+ + +
+ - -
- + +
- + -

A quite simple table with the possible logical values of a and b as well as the logical value of the complete statement "if a then b". + indicates true, - indicates false, the values for a are in the left, for b in the right, and for the statement as a whole in the middle column.
Where's the human bias in it? I really don't see why you claim that the rules of logic carry a human bias.

[PLAYER57832]

This thread is about a fundamental paradox - you are arguing that there is no such thing as paradoxes, because god's existence explains away every problem.

No, I speak only of one idea that you seem to think must be a paradox, but I don't. And I say that the fact that you, some others, cannot see how God can be omniscient and give us free will is not enough to make it an undisputable paradox. I feel the two can coexist, it makes fully logical sense to me, but convincing you is something else entirely.

By-the-way, logic defines a paradox as something that cannot be, so if it occurs .. .it is, by defnition not a paradox.

So you claim free will and an omniscient god both exist and therefor the existence of both can't be a paradox, that sounds like circular reasoning to me. Tzor is the only one so far to get halfway out of the paradox by putting god completely outside our universe in a parallell one, but then it becomes quite hard to see how he can intervene with this one at all.



And what's so biased about, for example, this:

a -> b
+ + +
+ - -
- + +
- + -

A quite simple table with the possible logical values of a and b as well as the logical value of the complete statement "if a then b". + indicates true, - indicates false, the values for a are in the left, for b in the right, and for the statement as a whole in the middle column.
Where's the human bias in it? I really don't see why you claim that the rules of logic carry a human bias.

No because you are ignoring the possibility of other options.

Again, just because you cannot conceive of a way for it to be, does not make it impossible.

THAT is the foundation of logic and science.... anything is possible until you prove it cannot be.

Logic works fine in our world, for humans. But, God is outside all that. God is not just outside our universe, dimension, whatever God is everywhere. God is outside any limitations of our universe at all.

And yes, I DO take as a foundation that "God exists". I have said that ... and that he is omniscient and that we have free will. I canot logically prove to you this is so ... but neither can you disprove it. Not really .. you have tried, but really all you show is that you are limited by what you perceive human logic to be.

Ironically, you don't even see the holes in your logic. Specifically, that anything not proven false just might be possible.

[Jenos Ridan]

In re your point about the universe not being deterministic, that's only true at a quantum level-and random uncontrollable particle behaviour leaves as little scope for free will as determinism.

Furthermore, if our actions aren't determined, then what causes them?

Well, i don't know. At present, no one does. Roger Penrose puts forward an interestign theory - essentially, i think, it boils down to differnt brain states - of which there are, in theory, more than the number of atoms in the universe - changing as a result of collapsing wave functions at the quantum level. I could be wrong on the detail - if anyone else has read the Emperor's new Mind and wants to put me straight, please do.

So nothing a person does is predetermined, yes?

[Frigidus]

In re your point about the universe not being deterministic, that's only true at a quantum level-and random uncontrollable particle behaviour leaves as little scope for free will as determinism.

Furthermore, if our actions aren't determined, then what causes them?

Well, i don't know. At present, no one does. Roger Penrose puts forward an interestign theory - essentially, i think, it boils down to differnt brain states - of which there are, in theory, more than the number of atoms in the universe - changing as a result of collapsing wave functions at the quantum level. I could be wrong on the detail - if anyone else has read the Emperor's new Mind and wants to put me straight, please do.

So nothing a person does is predetermined, yes?

Assuming there's no God, either answer has good arguments. I see no room for free will if God is both our omnipotent creator and an omniscient being.

[MeDeFe]

player, logic is really not an empirical science in the way that you look at states of existence and interaction in the world and conclude that those that exist are logical. Really, it isn't. Your saying that logic doesn't apply to god is a cop-out, and a big one at that.


And maybe we can disprove it, let's try again.

If "free will" means that we have the possibility to consciously pick between several options of acting and/or thinking (basically that we are in charge or our own minds), and god's omniscience includes that he already knows which option we will pick before we do it, the two are mutually exclusive. Analogies with eating bananas or apples don't apply, we're not talking about educated guesses based on previous experience, neither do analogies of recorded football games apply, because the record would have to exist before the game. We're talking of 100% certain knowledge before the "choice" takes place. God's supposedly able to say how the life of an infant is going to play out, the whole 80 years, before the grandparents of this infant are even born, and at the same time he's supposedly able to interfere with this unborn infants life if he thinks it's a good thing to do. This has nothing to do with educated guesses or watching records of things that happened in the past, so skip the analogies and show me, in my example, exactly where free will finds a way in.

God knows (and has always known) with complete certainty how any given person is going to act.
That means there's only one way for the person to act, only one choice that can be made at any given point in time. To this person it might appear as if s/he is making a conscious choice, but it will always be the one god already knows, that's why there are no alternatives.
If there are no alternatives, how can there be free will?

Even if you define "free will" less strongly than I did, as alternative ways of acting, but not necessarily consciously (possibly based on probabilities), there are no alternatives. God still knows.
So go ahead, show me the hole in the logic, and not just the claim that logic doesn't apply.

[Jenos Ridan]

So nothing a person does is predetermined, yes?

Assuming there's no God, either answer has good arguments. I see no room for free will if God is both our omnipotent creator and an omniscient being.

Then, since everybody has "free will", they are not predetermined to make any choice on any matter; they free to think, feel, do, act, etc, anything.

Do I understand you correctly? Just want to get it all out there so we don't spend the next ten pages bickering over definintions.

[PLAYER57832]

player, logic is really not an empirical science in the way that you look at states of existence and interaction in the world and conclude that those that exist are logical. Really, it isn't. Your saying that logic doesn't apply to god is a cop-out, and a big one at that.


And maybe we can disprove it, let's try again.

If "free will" means that we have the possibility to consciously pick between several options of acting and/or thinking (basically that we are in charge or our own minds), and god's omniscience includes that he already knows which option we will pick before we do it, the two are mutually exclusive .

Just one example: What if all time exists at once, which is actually a leading theory?

Another: What if each choice actually creates 2 realities, but God is able to tie them all together ... or what if that part that is our "soul" only gets to travel one choice.

Except ... each of these is not really a true answer, as I have described them. As written, they are limited by logic. I am trying to grasp at concepts, that, like grasping what time really is, are "there", but which I have a hard time really understanding & describing. When I say the possibility of things outside earthly logic exist ... that is what I mean. Can you logically explain time? That is, what was before time? How could there be an end to time? How could there not be? Saying that we cannot answer these questions is not a cop-out, it is simply acknowledging human and language limitations. Perhaps someday we could explain it logically, but not now. If God exists (and I believe he does, of course), God must, by definition, be outside everything we know and conceive. God would have to be to be our creator. So, saying that God is outside our understanding is not a "cop out" it is an expression of who God is, of how God would have to operate.

For me, the explanation is that God knows that out of zillion, zillioin, zillion, zillion (etc.) choices, ig he does A and B, then x will happen... eventually If he does A and C, then y will happen... eventually. BUT, we have to make the choice to make it happen. He just predicts, knows. I may know that my son will throw a tantrum, but he is the one having the tantrum. I am not causing him to have one. If that does not make sense to you, then it doesn't.

Picasso called art "the lie that tells a truth". I would turn that around and say that logic is truth that sometimes lies.

[MeDeFe]

You ignored the interesting part of my post and my challenge to you to show me where my argument breaks down.



And you're right, none of your post is an answer, and none of it is concerned with logic. You seem to think that 'logical' means easily or even immediately understandable. It's not quite like that, even with very simple examples: Many people have a hard time seeing why the proposition "if a then b" is true if a is false and b is true. b follows from a, always, but even if there is no a there can still be a b and the proposition is true.

Logic is an abstract tool with which you can analyze relations between various (almost as abstract) entities, it's not something you get at empirically.

[heavycola]

If God exists (and I believe he does, of course), God must, by definition, be outside everything we know and conceive. God would have to be to be our creator. So, saying that God is outside our understanding is not a "cop out" it is an expression of who God is, of how God would have to operate.

I don't want to get in the way of MeDefe's much more interesting argument, but...
I don't understand why god, to whom you ascribe perfectly understandable qualities such as mercy, anger, compassion, even omniscience - and who, through jesus (who also possessed these qualities of love, anger etc etc), particpiated in the universe as we know it on a anthropomorphic level - is still alllowed this enormous get-out clause when a problem surfaces.
Love, anger, revenge, mercy- these are certainly not outside everything we know and understand. So yoru argument IS a cop out. You can;t have it both ways.

[dewey316]

God's supposedly able to say how the life of an infant is going to play out, the whole 80 years, before the grandparents of this infant are even born, and at the same time he's supposedly able to interfere with this unborn infants life if he thinks it's a good thing to do. This has nothing to do with educated guesses or watching records of things that happened in the past, so skip the analogies and show me, in my example, exactly where free will finds a way in.

That is exactly what these whole discussion needs to come down to. Before one can claim there is a paradox, or that there isn't. You have to define free will. I don't think there is breakdown of logic it is more a issue with the definition. What needs to be discussed is if God knows a choice you are going to make, is it a choice.

This is far from a xianist vs. athiest argument, this question has caused rifts between Christian sects for a very long time. The only way that most of us are able to describe this, seems to be "illogical", but I think it is far from that. (I think it was you) who tried to say that god can't be all knowing, and all powerfull, well allowing free will. What you failed to add, was that god is also omnipresent. You see, if god is present now, and in 200 years, his knowing the outcome becomes obvious, not because he watched a recorded version of our lifes, but because he also excists in the future time.

It is easy for me as a Christian to accept this, I don't expect you to. If god is all powerful, all knowing, and all present, then it works. If you try to take out part of it, you are missing the whole idea. Heck, for all I know, maybe I don't have free will, maybe I just have the perseption of it. Either way, it doesn't change my faith, and doesn't take away from it.

The whole problem is trying to apply logic to something that is beyond what we can observe. Just like the people who logicly assumed that the world was flat. It was completely logical, until they observed something beyond the limit of what they could see in the here and now. It is the same for every one of us. We are basing our "logic" only on what we have been able to observe. For those of use who beleive in a god, we can usualy give you the exact example of what it is that we observed that makes the god option logical. Your observations might be that a god doesn't excist. I am sure it is a logical explanation based on your observations of the world around. The whole thing is just a matter of observation, it seems rather unfair to assume automaticly that those of us who beleive in a god, are not logical. It is just a matter of tying in the things we have observed, and coming to diffrent conclusions, because our observations are different. That doesn't make either side not logical, it just means we had differing sets of data that we processed.

[Juan_Bottom]

The whole problem is trying to apply logic to something that is beyond what we can observe.

Seriously, I'm having this problem applying logic to you observable Christians.... You aren't being very logical....

It is easy for me as a Christian to accept this, I don't expect you to. If god is all powerful, all knowing, and all present, then it works.

I figured that out a long time ago.....
and the bold part was scary... Juniper Bushes???? A miracle!

Just like the people who logicly assumed that the world was flat. It was completely logical, until they observed something beyond the limit of what they could see in the here and now.

No it wasn't!
Anyone with a brain will ask why, and discard stupid answers. It's not logical just to assume anything. Nor is it logical to believe something because everyone else does. And such seems to always be the case(and certainly was in your example). You should observe for yourself. Like a baby who wants to eat everthing.

For those of use who beleive in a god, we can usualy give you the exact example of what it is that we observed that makes the god option logical.

Yeah, and it's annoying. It's always about feelings, and faith(sixth sense?).
Because God is intangible.........
-but that isn't supposed to be an easy answer. There's nothing logical about 'I believe, because!!!'

The whole thing is just a matter of observation, it seems rather unfair to assume automaticly that those of us who beleive in a god, are not logical.

We've debated the hell out of this, and they/you aren't being any kind of logical. They're/you're being retarded. And I'm very annoyed by Christians saying that it makes perfect sense, and that I just don't "get it." And that 20 kinds of logic can co-exist, and all be perfectly sound. NO! I'm right, or you are, but so far, ya'll ain't won an argument. And now we've reverted to actually arguing as if there is a God. Welp, there isn't. When you're dead, you're dead.
Prove me wrong, but don't throw a stupidly easy answer at me like "you'll understand when your dead, or it takes faith." Or even, "I'm a different kind of logical." You and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum, so only one of us can be right.

That doesn't make either side not logical, it just means we had differing sets of data that we processed.

Yes! I agree. I believe in reality(my data). I find answers. And you process your feelings and emotions.

Just one example: What if all time exists at once, which is actually a leading theory?

Hasn't it been proven that it can't? No, seriously?<-not being a jerk! Isn't time a line, not a 'dot?'

Another: What if each choice actually creates 2 realities, but God is able to tie them all together ... or what if that part that is our "soul" only gets to travel one choice.

What if there are/were thirteen dimensions and Gravity leaks from the thirteenth. And possibly, there are/were infinate more? What if you exist in each one of them, but may have made different life decision? What if there is no soul, since someone made it up. And there has never ever been evidence of one.
You can't live forever, so get over it. "I'm dying, and the only way to stop is by grasping at straws!!!"

Except ... each of these is not really a true answer, as I have described them. As written, they are limited by logic.

Wha? Limited by ability to apply logic, or ability to apply knowledge? I use both....

You can guess, and you're right until proven wrong? Is that the Christian stance on religion? It sounds that way here, fur really...

That is, what was before time? How could there be an end to time? How could there not be?

To you, time is God? That is a funny concept, and was my first impression reading this. I know it's not what you believe... but funny still.

BTW, if you actually do replace the word "time," with the name "God," does it trip you out to actually think about it? Or do you dismiss it with an easy answer, like "God is outside everything we know and concieve?"

If God exists (and I believe he does, of course), God must, by definition, be outside everything we know and conceive.

So God exists, because (s)he can't logically exist??? Did some pot-head down in county write that for you?

I would turn that around and say that logic is truth that sometimes lies.

Good?..... so you reject logic?

I know you Christians are getting hit hard by some heavy thinkers here... so I have refrained from this thread except for a few quick questions... But all this logic crap is annoying as hell. Your trying to explain away the most complex things(the universe, time) with easy answers. You outta know better.

[dewey316]

We've debated the hell out of this, and they/you aren't being any kind of logical. They're/you're being retarded. And I'm very annoyed by Christians saying that it makes perfect sense, and that I just don't "get it." And that 20 kinds of logic can co-exist, and all be perfectly sound. NO! I'm right, or you are, but so far, ya'll ain't won an argument. And now we've reverted to actually arguing as if there is a God. Welp, there isn't. When you're dead, you're dead.
Prove me wrong, but don't throw a stupidly easy answer at me like "you'll understand when your dead, or it takes faith." Or even, "I'm a different kind of logical." You and I are on opposite ends of the spectrum, so only one of us can be right.

I was going to reply to all of your stuff, but I am at work and don't really have the time right now to sit down and type that much. I didn't say there are twenty different kinds of logic that co-excist. I said there are 20 different data sets, and people are coming to a different answer using sound logic on differing data. You know the old saying "until you have walked a mile in their shoes...", it is the same thing. Just as I said, I think you are likely coming to logical explanation based on the observable data you have, I am doing the same, I am just looking at different data.

Honestly, I am probably not going to respond to the rest of it, because of my schedule this week. As you said, we have been through this before, and your response was very condescending. I am more than willing to discuss things, but I am not going to bother with taking a significant ammount of my time, to respond to reply's like that.

[Juan_Bottom]

As you said, we have been through this before, and your response was very condescending. I am more than willing to discuss things, but I am not going to bother with taking a significant ammount of my time, to respond to reply's like that.

Yes, my apologies. I never re-read it or anything. I was all types of annoyed this early morning. Not even at you guys, but these same discussions didn't help. I was too condescending, so I apologize.

[MeDeFe]

That is exactly what these whole discussion needs to come down to. Before one can claim there is a paradox, or that there isn't. You have to define free will. I don't think there is breakdown of logic it is more a issue with the definition.

I did offer a tentative definition.

[PLAYER57832]

If God exists (and I believe he does, of course), God must, by definition, be outside everything we know and conceive. God would have to be to be our creator. So, saying that God is outside our understanding is not a "cop out" it is an expression of who God is, of how God would have to operate.

I don't want to get in the way of MeDefe's much more interesting argument, but...
I don't understand why god, to whom you ascribe perfectly understandable qualities such as mercy, anger, compassion, even omniscience - and who, through jesus (who also possessed these qualities of love, anger etc etc), particpiated in the universe as we know it on a anthropomorphic level - is still alllowed this enormous get-out clause when a problem surfaces.
Love, anger, revenge, mercy- these are certainly not outside everything we know and understand. So yoru argument IS a cop out. You can;t have it both ways.

God created all of those things you mention and more ... that's why. And no, if God created those things ... then he must be more than those things.

I comes down to this. You refuse/don't want to accept that God coule be real and true, so you see all these things as "escape clauses", but they are the nature of God. And God is always more than we humans can understand ... after all, God create us!

[suggs]

This is always Player's argument "God is so complex and mysterious, we poor mortals cant comprehend".
Its the defence of the astrolger through the ages. It can be dismissed as an argument, since one could say this ad infinitum, and indeed, ad nauseum.

[PLAYER57832]

You ignored the interesting part of my post and my challenge to you to show me where my argument breaks down.

No, I said your argument has nothing to do with the fundamental issue, which is that for God to exist, God MUST be beyond just about anything human beings can think or imagine.

And you're right, none of your post is an answer

It is an answer ... just not one you like. That does not mean it is wrong.

and none of it is concerned with logic. You seem to think that 'logical' means easily or even immediately understandable. It's not quite like that, even with very simple examples: Many people have a hard time seeing why the proposition "if a then b" is true if a is false and b is true. b follows from a, always, but even if there is no a there can still be a b and the proposition is true.

Logic is an abstract tool with which you can analyze relations between various (almost as abstract) entities, it's not something you get at empirically.

You are sort of correct ... but NOT entirely. You see, the logic you are speaking of involves only those things human beings know. That is ALWAYS the limit to human logic... by definition.

God is by definition outside of that. It is not a "cop out". It is the nature of God, it is part of what God has to be to be our creator. That IS logic ... the creater must be greater than the creation.

You see... if a then b, means if there is always a, then there is always b. BUT, the converse is not true. There could be b, but not a. Also, this says absolutely nothing about c, d,e, f, g... etc. Even in our world, even in the world as we understand it. That is actually the most basic error, the MOST COMMON error made in most scientific endeavors and in logical arguments ... not taking all possibilities into account. When discussing God, the possibilities are limitless. They are not even limited to concepts that we are capable of knowing, never mind discussing.

I draw you back to my question that you did not answer. Define time, fully and logically. To be full and complete, this definition must include what happened before time existed or explain how there could be a before/after time existed. When you can do that, you might be a step closer to understanding God ... but likely only a step closer.

We are to God as a grain of sand is to the universe.

[PLAYER57832]

This is always Player's argument "God is so complex and mysterious, we poor mortals cant comprehend".
Its the defence of the astrolger through the ages. It can be dismissed as an argument, since one could say this ad infinitum, and indeed, ad nauseum.

You commit a great fallacy of logic. That you cannot prove something does not mean it cannot exist.

Because we are incapable of fully and completely knowing everything that "unkown quantity" is ALWAYS the ultimate foundation of logic and science. THAT is the issue.

This is true whether you are talking about knowing the nature of soil, studying species, or anything else... there is ALWAYS more to be found and discovered. At some point, most questions eventually come to an "unknowable" point ... at least for now. That is one thing that moves science forward. The desire to go out and find the currently unknowable answers.

You can "dismiss" as fruitless discussion of God and God's existance ... but you cannot dismiss the possibility that God might exist or dismiss as "unthinking, illogical" human beings those who believe in such things. If you do, YOU, not we, commit the greatest error, the most common error, in logic.