DiscussMormonism.com

How many times do we hear God lamenting (or getting pissed off) in the Bible or Book of Mormon because people make bad choices? I'm thinking, for example, about 3 Nephi 9 and 10. Right after destroying most of the cities of the Nephites and Lamanites (which no one bothered to chronicle except in the Book of Mormon), Jesus said:

2 Wo, wo, wo unto this people; wo unto the inhabitants of the whole earth except they shall arepent; for the devil blaugheth, and his angels rejoice, because of the slain of the fair sons and daughters of my people; and it is because of their iniquity and abominations that they are fallen!

4 O ye people of these agreat cities which have fallen, who are descendants of Jacob, yea, who are of the house of Israel, how oft have I bgathered you as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and have cnourished you.

Putting aside for the moment the question of whether God is responsible for evil (he sticks us on a planet with legions of devils to tempt us but no evidence for his existence or clear guidance), my question is this:

Why does God lament what is a forgone conclusion based on his omniscience? If the scriptures are accurate, he always sounds surprised or hurt, like he didn't know what was coming.

You might say that he isn't omniscient, or, maybe, like Mr. Deity, has given up his omniscience for the time being.

However, to say that God isn't omniscient and, by extension, doesn't know the future, means that he can be surprised, and could you really have faith in such a being? As much as I hate Bruce R., I'm with him on this one. A limited God could say in the future, "Damn! My solution to the problem of entropy didn't work. Sorry guys!"

The Mormons I've spoken with tend to believe in a limited, lower-case "g" god who is a participant in the universe rather than the originator of it. Not only does this NOT answer any of the basic metaphysical questions, but it makes Elohim into a demi-God or, better yet, an advanced space alien from the planet Kolob. Can an advanced space alien really hear and answer every human prayer? Can an advanced space alien guarantee that he (and not the "devil") will win in the end? Can an advanced space alien promise "eternal" life?

For me, in order for someone to deserve the title of God, he/she/it would need to be omniscient and either know, or be able to predict with perfect accuracy, the future. This is not the God we read about in scripture. He always seems to get taken off guard and then reacts with childish tantrums (flooding the earth, burning cities to the ground, etc.)

I've found a much more simple solution, but I recognize that it isn't for everyone.

Good post.

I would add just this: Over the last three years of my apostasy and subsequent embracing of rationality, my view on 'God' has changed in a significant way. When I first became an atheist, my position was something like: "I'm not going to worship this God of Abraham any longer because I've concluded that he is imaginary."

I realized at some point in the last three or four months that my position in now: "I'm not going to worship this God of Abraham any longer, real or imaginary, because he is very clearly an unpleasant and immoral tyrant and unworthy of my worship."

Only incidentally, it is with a sense of some relief that I conclude that this tyrant of the Levantine desert tribes is every bit as real as Zeus and Thor.

The omniscience of someone else doesn't conflict with one's free will in any way. LDS don't accept predestination by the way and such non acceptance cannot possibly conflict with an all knowing God.

That being said, I personally believe God is omniscient relative to us; He knows what's going to happen to within a high degree of probability (decreasing over time), but not absolutely.

Panopticon wrote:For me, in order for someone to deserve the title of God, he/she/it would need to be omniscient and either know, or be able to predict with perfect accuracy, the future.

If you don't mind, why would you want that in God?

In LDS theology God is not omnipotent in a classical sense. Perhaps his omniscience is limited by his impotent-omnipotence.

God really makes a lot more sense if you start out thinking of him in terms of a human construct.

bcspace wrote:The omniscience of someone else doesn't conflict with one's free will in any way. LDS don't accept predestination by the way and such non acceptance cannot possibly conflict with an all knowing God.

That being said, I personally believe God is omniscient relative to us; He knows what's going to happen to within a high degree of probability (decreasing over time), but not absolutely.

How high of probability? Is he wrong 10% of the time? 5%? 1%? I don't think that the percentage matters. As I said in my earlier post, God could someday tell us that he didn't solve the entropy problem and all of the promises about "eternal" life turn out to be false. Could you have faith in such a being? Can you call someone a "god" who is wrong 10% of the time about future events? What if something completely caught him off guard, like the Devil and his angels calling a truce? So much for God's "prophecies."

Really, a non-omniscient God is nothing more than an advanced space alien that is mostly right about its understanding of the universe but can make no guarantees.

zeezrom wrote:

Panopticon wrote:For me, in order for someone to deserve the title of God, he/she/it would need to be omniscient and either know, or be able to predict with perfect accuracy, the future.

If you don't mind, why would you want that in God?

Why would I not want my God to be able to back up his promises with assurances of his omniscience? The idea of a god who can be surprised, even if the chances are minuscule, is unacceptable to me. Why refer to him as a god? Why shouldn't I worship Satan. Maybe he will win. Who knows?

bcspace wrote:The omniscience of someone else doesn't conflict with one's free will in any way. LDS don't accept predestination by the way and such non acceptance cannot possibly conflict with an all knowing God.

That being said, I personally believe God is omniscient relative to us; He knows what's going to happen to within a high degree of probability (decreasing over time), but not absolutely.

So, by that definition, there is a chance that Satan will win out in the end and maybe God doesn't know about it?

Consequently, your belief also doesn't agree with the stated beliefs of Joseph Smith on the matter:

2. We here observe that God is the only supreme governor and independent being in whom all fullness and perfection dwell; who is omnipotent, omnipresent and omniscient; without beginning of days or end of life; and that in him every good gift and every good principle dwell; and that he is the Father of lights; in him the principle of faith dwells independently, and he is the object in whom the faith of all other rational and accountable beings center for life and salvation.

http://thriceholy.net/Texts/Faith.html

How high of probability? Is he wrong 10% of the time? 5%? 1%?

Relative to us, He's never wrong (but He can change His mind, Jeremiah 18:1-10). Relative to the Gods? Who knows? But it's apparently enough for Him to have to wind the watch and adjust some parts from from time to time.

bcspace wrote:The omniscience of someone else doesn't conflict with one's free will in any way.

Blake Ostler disagrees. I remember there was a movement on FAIR to quasi-embrace open theism because even plenty there found the argument compelling.

http://maxwellinstitute.BYU.edu/publica ... m=2&id=226

Here's a version of the argument that divine foreknowledge is incompatible with free will that Ostler forwards:

1. It has always been true that I will sin tomorrow. (Assumption: Omnitemporality of Truth).

2. It is impossible that God should hold a false belief or fail to know any truth (Assumption: Infallible Foreknowledge).

3. God has always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 1 and 2).

4. If God has always believed a certain thing, then it is not in anyone's power to do anything which entails that God has not always believed that thing (Assumption: Fixed Past).

5. It is not in my power to do anything that entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (from 3 and 4).

6. That I refrain from sinning tomorrow entails that God has not always believed that I will sin tomorrow (necessary truth and from 2; Principle of Transfer of Powerlessness).

7. Therefore, it is not in my power to refrain from sinning tomorrow (from 5 and 6).

8. If I act freely when I sin tomorrow, then I also have it within my power to refrain from sinning (assumption libertarian free will).

9. Therefore, I do not act freely when I sin tomorrow (from 7 and 8).

I accept that omniscience implies absolute divine foreknowledge and that foreknowledge is incompatible with libertarian free will. I also think there's a pretty good case that Mormonism should be interpreted as embracing absolute foreknowledge. There isn't as strong of a case for libertarian free will, so I think the Mormon's best out is to reject libertarian free will. This will cause secondary theological problems, but they're already in a pickle in the first place. Ostler opts for only accepting limited foreknowledge.