Can there be free will while God knows all things?


kstevens67
 Share

Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Its incorrect to assume value of one infinity having "more" than another infinity.

Why?

10 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

This is where set theory has completely used bad logic to create a seeming paradox yet somehow is provable, or so Cantor thought with his diagonal argument. The whole paradigm is fundamentally flawed on so many levels I am ashamed to think my fellow man could be tricked so bad.

If this is so, then I'm sure you will have no problem giving us examples of two or three of those flaws.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, Vort said:

Why?

If this is so, then I'm sure you will have no problem giving us examples of two or three of those flaws.

Okay, no problem

Numbers, by themselves are just an abstract. Its a way to quantify something. "COUNTING" with real numbers is how we quantify "how many" things something contains. Our system is base 10 where one counts with a mark until he counts to ten, then make a mark and repeat, over and over again. It is a principle that repeats over and over again. Because of this system and principle involved, it can count anything and literally everything possible as there is "no limit" to its principle or ability to count, mark, repeat over and over endlessly forever and ever. So, when someone makes a claim that this system (defined basically as the "real numbers") is less than a different set  its the same thing as saying the principle of counting to 10, make a mark, repeat, has a limit and really cant keep counting something forever. It truly defies basic elementary school understanding!

Another major problem is its an oxymoron to say you can have an "infinite set" of something. In defining "set" it entails a quantifiable amount that has a limit or includes "all". Its an oxymoron in that infinite means limitless and is an abstract way of saying its a principle of addition without end. You simply cannot have a set of completeness of something that always lacks completeness and is never, at anytime, closer to becoming "more complete".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Numbers, by themselves are just an abstract. Its a way to quantify something. "COUNTING" with real numbers is how we quantify "how many" things something contains. Our system is base 10 where one counts with a mark until he counts to ten, then make a mark and repeat, over and over again. It is a principle that repeats over and over again. Because of this system and principle involved, it can count anything and literally everything possible as there is "no limit" to its principle or ability to count, mark, repeat over and over endlessly forever and ever. So, when someone makes a claim that this system (defined basically as the "real numbers") is less than a different set  its the same thing as saying the principle of counting to 10, make a mark, repeat, has a limit and really cant keep counting something forever. It truly defies basic elementary school understanding!

Yes, numbers are indeed an abstraction. But the concept of "infinity" is not "countable" in the normal sense -- a point I expect you will quickly agree with. Please note that you have offered up no kind of proof or logic or anything else to establish your point. You have simply made an assertion:

Quote

When someone makes a claim that this system (defined basically as the "real numbers") is less than a different set, it's the same thing as saying the sprinciple of counting to 10, make a mark, repeat, has a limit and really can't keep counting something forever.

This assertion is incorrect. Claiming that infinite set A < infinite set B is not at all claiming that you can't keep repeating a count. You have made an assertion, and an incorrect one at that, rather than offering any actual proof.

There is a sense in which an infinite set can be considered, for lack of a better term, "countable". That situation occurs when it is possible to make a 1-to-1 correspondence between each member of an infinite set and each of the counting numbers (1, 2, 3...) (or some subset thereof). Such sets are defined by their cardinality, an attribute which for the counting (or natural) numbers is call aleph-zero (or aleph-naught or aleph-null). The set of rational numbers can be shown to be countable, and thus of cardinality aleph-zero. The irrationals can be shown NOT to be countable -- that is, it is impossible to create a one-to-one correspondence between the integers and the irrationals in any non-zero interval.

This gets into Cantor's ideas, which you seem not to like, though I don't know why. Mathematics is about defining symbols, manipulating those symbols logically, and showing that certain manipulations give a deterministic outcome. The rules of the game are open to all, and though they can get extraordinarily complex, they're easy enough in principle. If you think Cantor was wrong, show that he was wrong. You will become a celebrity overnight in the math world and can make big money going from university to university showing your debunking of Cantor. Otherwise, his mathematics are rock-solid, so saying you don't approve of them is kind of like saying you don't like gravity, so therefore you're going to flap your arms and fly away. Making a claim is easy, but the proof is in the arm-flapping.

1 hour ago, Rob Osborn said:

Another major problem is its an oxymoron to say you can have an "infinite set" of something. In defining "set" it entails a quantifiable amount that has a limit or includes "all". Its an oxymoron in that infinite means limitless and is an abstract way of saying its a principle of addition without end. You simply cannot have a set of completeness of something that always lacks completeness and is never, at anytime, closer to becoming "more complete".

Again, Rob, this is factually incorrect. There is no oxymoron in the term "infinite set", because the term "set" does not demand a quantifiable amount. Rather, it is a linguistic shortcut. I hereby define X to represent the set of all unquantifiable amounts. Guess what? X is defined.

Are you familiar with Kurt Gödel's classic, mind-blowing "Incompleteness Theorem"? This theorem turns on its ear many of the unconscious assertions we have applied to how mathematics works. If you enjoy a good (though not necessarily easy) read, you should go to the library and check out Doug Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. You will thank me later. (Seriously. Go read it. You really will thank me.)

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

45 minutes ago, Vort said:

Yes, numbers are indeed an abstraction. But the concept of "infinity" is not "countable" in the normal sense -- a point I expect you will quickly agree with. Please note that you have offered up no kind of proof or logic or anything else to establish your point. You have simply made an assertion:

This assertion is incorrect. Claiming that infinite set A < infinite set B is not at all claiming that you can't keep repeating a count. You have made an assertion, and an incorrect one at that, rather than offering any actual proof.

There is a sense in which an infinite set can be considered, for lack of a better term, "countable". That situation occurs when it is possible to make a 1-to-1 correspondence between each member of an infinite set and each of the counting numbers (1, 2, 3...) (or some subset thereof). Such sets are defined by their cardinality, an attribute which for the counting (or natural) numbers is call aleph-zero (or aleph-naught or aleph-null). The set of rational numbers can be shown to be countable, and thus of cardinality aleph-zero. The irrationals can be shown NOT to be countable -- that is, it is impossible to create a one-to-one correspondence between the integers and the irrationals in any non-zero interval.

This gets into Cantor's ideas, which you seem not to like, though I don't know why. Mathematics is about defining symbols, manipulating those symbols logically, and showing that certain manipulations give a deterministic outcome. The rules of the game are open to all, and though they can get extraordinarily complex, they're easy enough in principle. If you think Cantor was wrong, show that he was wrong. You will become a celebrity overnight in the math world and can make big money going from university to university showing your debunking of Cantor. Otherwise, his mathematics are rock-solid, so saying you don't approve of them is kind of like saying you don't like gravity, so therefore you're going to flap your arms and fly away. Making a claim is easy, but the proof is in the arm-flapping.

Again, Rob, this is factually incorrect. There is no oxymoron in the term "infinite set", because the term "set" does not demand a quantifiable amount. Rather, it is a linguistic shortcut. I hereby define X to represent the set of all unquantifiable amounts. Guess what? X is defined.

Are you familiar with Kurt Gödel's classic, mind-blowing "Incompleteness Theorem"? This theorem turns on its ear many of the unconscious assertions we have applied to how mathematics works. If you enjoy a good (though not necessarily easy) read, you should go to the library and check out Doug Hofstadter's Gödel, Escher, Bach: An Eternal Golden Braid. You will thank me later. (Seriously. Go read it. You really will thank me.)

Unbelievable. You didnt get it at all.

I understand about cardinality, correspondence, etc.

I was trying to show you how the real numbers as they count 1,2,3...is a system of principle that repeats. It doesnt matter what symbol you give it, it us just a ststem for counting things. Is there a limit of things it cant no longer count? No, it can count every fathomable thing. Even if we were to put every fathomable thing imaginable in a one on one correspondence with counting, it could still count everything.  You cannot deny the principle of a system designed to count everything. 

Cantor is wrong when he wrongly assumes he thinks he can create a new number in his list that wasnt already there. The problem is assuming one can list every number to begin with. One cannot do such if it is truly infinite. Then, another bad assumption thinking one can create a new number by using a finite sequential counting system to create a new number not already in the list is absurd. The whole premise is absurd because logically, every column and row would already contain every infinite possibility but Cantors proof cant show this because he is only showing at any given time an incomplete set of combinations of numbers in rows and columns and all he has to do is just change his next sequence something different than the next one shown for each decimal place. That is not proof that different sizes of infinities exist. All it shows is a clever trick to create a different number than any given finite number of options. 

The way to show this fallacy is to place a one on one correspondence with each new addition of his new number with the reals. This will prove that no matter how long his new number becomes to try to proove his point will only balance out that there is exactly a true one on one correspondence with every one of his numbers plus his new number. 

The thing we must remember is that infinity is not a number but only a concept. There is no such thing as a number of infinite length. It doesnt exist, cant exist, and can be proven it cant exist. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Unbelievable. You didnt get it at all.

I understand about cardinality, correspondence, etc.

I was trying to show you how the real numbers as they count 1,2,3...is a system of principle that repeats. It doesnt matter what symbol you give it, it us just a ststem for counting things. Is there a limit of things it cant no longer count? No, it can count every fathomable thing. Even if we were to put every fathomable thing imaginable in a one on one correspondence with counting, it could still count everything.  You cannot deny the principle of a system designed to count everything.

On the contrary, Rob, I "got it" perfectly. You are mistaken. The integers are not sufficient to "count everything". Even though they are infinite, they are insufficient to "count" the irrationals. That is the point. Again, this can be demonstrated with symbolic logic. If you think you can demonstrate otherwise, do so, and you will be both rich and famous -- and justly so.

Despite your protestations, it seems evident that you do not in fact understand either cardinality or correspondence. Knowing the terms does not equal understanding the concepts. Do you have any actual background in number theory, formal or otherwise? (Pretty sure I already know the answer, but just checking.)

Edited by Vort
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, Vort said:

On the contrary, Rob, I "got it" perfectly. You are mistaken. The integers are not sufficient to "count everything". Even though they are infinite, they are insufficient to "count" the irrationals. That is the point. Again, this can be demonstrated with symbolic logic. If you think you can demonstrate otherwise, do so, and you will be both rich and famous -- and justly so.

Despite your protestations, Rob, it seems evident that you do not in fact understand either cardinality or correspondence. Knowing the terms does not equal understanding the concepts. Do you actually have any background in number theory, formal or otherwise? (Pretty sure I already know the answer, but just checking.)

I understand it well enough to know there can be no such thing as different sizes of infinities.

I keep proving it but you cant get the concept. Thsts okay, it reminds me of that blue and bkack dress that went viral on the web and people couldnt agree on if it was blue and black, blue and gold/brown, white gold/brown. Turns out that the answer is that peoples own minds perceive colors differently. Just like that dress, not all of us perceive logic in the same manner.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_dress

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I understand it well enough to know there can be no such thing as different sizes of infinities.

In other words: You do not understand it.

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I keep proving it but you cant get the concept.

Rob, mathematical proofs are logical and symbolic. They are a real thing. You can show a proof, or else you cannot. So far, you have not shown any proof.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

No, not real familiar

You should bone up on that. It requires some background in number theory, but it will shatter your conception of how numbers and sets work.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, Vort said:

In other words: You do not understand it.

Rob, mathematical proofs are logical and symbolic. They are a real thing. You can show a proof, or else you cannot. So far, you have not shown any proof.

I continue to show a proof you are unwilling to open your mind to. To show I am not smoking crack and to show proof here is a link expressing more on this by someone else.

http://steve-patterson.com/cantor-wrong-no-infinite-sets/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

I continue to show a proof you are unwilling to open your mind to. To show I am not smoking crack and to show proof here is a link expressing more on this by someone else.

http://steve-patterson.com/cantor-wrong-no-infinite-sets/

Interesting article. Overlooking the fact that the author weirdly misuses the term metaphysics to refer to what would more rightly be called metamathematics, I actually agree with and appreciate many of his points. His most salient point is this:

[N]umbers are concepts. They do not exist separate from our minds, nor do they exist separate of our conception of them...The same is true in mathematics.

Bingo. Numbers are what we define them to be. They are not self-existent entities; they are linguistic constructs that serve as mental models for the benefit of our brains, allowing us to abstract out certain real-world properties into a manipulable shortcut.

This is obvious enough, though it's actually quite profound. It means that metamathematics, like any other meta- study, is fundamentally linguistic in nature. All concepts are linguistic in nature. That is what a "concept" MEANS.

So far, so good. Yet look at Patterson's initial assertion:

"There are no infinite sets. Not only do infinite sets not exist, but the very concept is logically contradictory – no different than 'square circles'."

His self-contradiction is both obvious and fatal to his argument. The concept of "set" is defined by mathematicians in such a way that of course infinite sets are possible. It's in the definition -- a set is any collection that is specified.

The only thing that Patterson can possibly mean by the above statement is that the linguistic construct of "infinite set" is self-contradictory. In fact, this is very clearly what he is claiming. Yet his demonstration (what you would wrongly call a "proof") of this is almost laughably nonsensical (and here I am paraphrasing, but almost quoting):

"Aleph-null plus aleph-null equals aleph-null, which is obviously impossible."

Except that it's not logically impossible at all. Patterson thinks that aleph-null must represent a quantity. But it doesn't. It represents a concept -- infinity. Specifically, a certain type of infinity. That is its definition.

Look at it this way. Two is even, another two is also even, but if I add them together, I get four -- but that's said to be even, too, which is clearly impossible!

Obviously, it's not. "Even" is not a size designation; it's a description of a numerical property.

Patterson's argument can be much better summarized as this:

Patterson doesn't think that modern formal mathematics is useful for modeling real-world things. So he wants to redefine the meanings of certain mathematical terms.

I have a much better idea: How about Patterson simply create his own number system and rules? Then he can show how much more useful and internally self-consistent his new number system is, and everyone can adopt it.

I think there is a very good reason Patterson doesn't do this: He can't.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Vort said:

Interesting article. Overlooking the fact that the author weirdly misuses the term metaphysics to refer to what would more rightly be called metamathematics, I actually agree with and appreciate many of his points. His most salient point is this:

[N]umbers are concepts. They do not exist separate from our minds, nor do they exist separate of our conception of them...The same is true in mathematics.

Bingo. Numbers are what we define them to be. They are not self-existent entities; they are linguistic constructs that serve as mental models for the benefit of our brains, allowing us to abstract out certain real-world properties into a manipulable shortcut.

This is obvious enough, though it's actually quite profound. It means that metamathematics, like any other meta- study, is fundamentally linguistic in nature. All concepts are linguistic in nature. That is what a "concept" MEANS.

So far, so good. Yet look at Patterson's initial assertion:

"There are no infinite sets. Not only do infinite sets not exist, but the very concept is logically contradictory – no different than 'square circles'."

His self-contradiction is both obvious and fatal to his argument. The concept of "set" is defined by mathematicians in such a way that of course infinite sets are possible. It's in the definition -- a set is any collection that is specified.

The only thing that Patterson can possibly mean by the above statement is that the linguistic construct of "infinite set" is self-contradictory. In fact, this is very clearly what he is claiming. Yet his demonstration (what you would wrongly call a "proof") of this is almost laughably nonsensical (and here I am paraphrasing, but almost quoting):

"Aleph-null plus aleph-null equals aleph-null, which is obviously impossible."

Except that it's not logically impossible at all. Patterson thinks that aleph-null must represent a quantity. But it doesn't. It represents a concept -- infinity. Specifically, a certain type of infinity. That is its definition.

Look at it this way. Two is even, another two is also even, but if I add them together, I get four -- but that's said to be even, too, which is clearly impossible!

Obviously, it's not. "Even" is not a size designation; it's a description of a numerical property.

Patterson's argument can be much better summarized as this:

Patterson doesn't think that modern formal mathematics is useful for modeling real-world things. So he wants to redefine the meanings of certain mathematical terms.

I have a much better idea: How about Patterson simply create his own number system and rules? Then he can show how much more useful and internally self-consistent his new number system is, and everyone can adopt it.

I think there is a very good reason Patterson doesn't do this: He can't.

Yet you miss the entire point of why an infinite set cant exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Rob Osborn said:

Yet you miss the entire point of why an infinite set cant exist.

You know, Rob, this is your modus operandi -- you give short, poorly-thought-out responses to thoughtful arguments, which are then supposed to be accepted as if they were actually thoughtful instead of simply lazy. But your "arguments", such as they are, are indeed lazy, almost meaningless.

If you think I have "missed the point of why an infinite set can't exist", then explain it to me. Don't put a link to an article and then pretend that your work here is done. That's lazy and intellectually dishonest.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Like he mentioned in his paper, the symbol itself is a concept and means nothing. The principle of counting by natural numbers is a means to quantify something. Its a system of adding that is without any limit.

2 minutes ago, Vort said:

You know, Rob, this is your modus operandi -- you give short, poorly-thought-out responses to thoughtful arguments, which are then supposed to be accepted as if they were actually thoughtful instead of simply lazy. But your "arguments", such as they are, are indeed lazy, almost meaningless.

If you think I have "missed the point of why an infinite set can't exist", then explain it to me. Don't put a link to an article and then pretend that your work here is done. That's lazy and intellectually dishonest.

okay, analogous to this is to apply it to the actual topic and what started this whole side track. 

We believe we are eternal beings and that we will continue on forever and ever. Will there ever come a point in the vast great future where we will arrive at having existed an infinite amount of time, if we were to start measuring now? No, even though we may say our existence will be infinite, its just a way of saying we will continue on a linear path of measurable existance that is always increasing but always knowable and quantifiable. Never will there be a point where an infinite amount of time will transpire between now and any future event.  Now, lets call this time of our existance into the future a "set". How big is it? How long is it? We may call it an infinite set so to speak but in practical reality it just means the existence counts forever without any limit or reference to size. The point is that something that never ends doesnt contain an actual "size" of something. Thus, logically nothing could be greater than something that has no measurable size because the concept of infinity isnt a number, its not quantifiable, buts just an abstract word thst defines something without limit.

Numbers, abstracts of language that measure and quantify things, always must have spatial reasoning within the finite. What I mean by this is that every number that could ever exist will always be of some finite size or length. There is no such a thing as an actual quantity of something we could quantify that gets to an infinite size or length. We may indeed be able to envision a future spreading out before us going on forever and ever but no matter what, we will never arrive at a point where an infinite amount of time will transpire inbetween now and then. Why, because an "infinite set" does not exist nor cannot exist as quantifiable. A "set" of something demands it is indeed quantifiable. A "set" of future time has to define set amounts of quantifiable time. If it is open ended though it never can be classified as a set. 

The problem with number set theory as it applies to infinity is that "size" doesnt exist in defining a system that continues on forever without any limit. The definition of "size" in language means it must have a limit, it absolutely MUST have a limit if one attempts to quantify things by "size" But, its impossible to measure the actual size of eternity- how long we really will continue to exist into eternity. What size is our existance? Is their something longer in size of length than our existence if we started measuring right now? Suppose we were to use both real and natural numbers and use a different one for each second into the neverending future to count with and make correspondence with, would we ever run out of one before the other? No. Why? Because neither the seconds, reals or naturals are a complete set of something. Its not a set.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Another thought to throw out there is this-  suppose it was somehow possible to capture or know all of the natural numbers as a "set" and then you were to start subtracting them out one by one. Does the cardinality of it change? Logically it must but what are you measuring it against? One could literally continue to subtract away actual numbers from this supposed set forever and ever and never change the size of it- it never would get smaller. It would always remain of an infinite cardinality, as mathmeticians call it. It wouldnt even matter if for every second that transpired your counting doubled in speed exponentially forever and ever, the set would always remain infinite never getting any smaller. Why? Because we are asking to subtract something quantifiable against an abstract concept that doesnt actually exist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Rob Osborn said:

I think we are talking about different things.

I don't think we are.

You said - God being omniscient would have made him evil because then he would have created us knowing we will be damned.

I said that only applies if God created us out of nothing - with Being Nothing better than Being Damned.  This would be evil.

It doesn't apply if God took existing intelligence and gave us spirit bodies capable of choice - because being capable of choice is better than existing without it even if that choice ends up in damnation.  This is not evil.

Edited by anatess2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2017 at 11:59 AM, anatess2 said:

I don't think we are.

You said - God being omniscient would have made him evil because then he would have created us knowing we will be damned.

I said that only applies if God created us out of nothing - with Being Nothing better than Being Damned.  This would be evil.

It doesn't apply if God took existing intelligence and gave us spirit bodies capable of choice - because being capable of choice is better than existing without it even if that choice ends up in damnation.  This is not evil.

I tend to agree.

But I don’t think it matters how much God knows, and I think the relationship between His knowledge and our choices has more to do with our will than with our agency. While our agency is a function of law (consequences), opposition (alternatives), knowledge (intelligence), understanding (accountability), and freedom. https://www.lds.org/ensign/2009/06/moral-agency?lang=eng, I believe our will is more fundamental than agency.

I think our will is an eternal attribute of our intelligence, or that which is co-eternal with God. As our will operated in co-eternity, God provided the elements of agency in the progressive estates. For example, in the spiritual realm, we had opposition in the form of differentiation (Abraham 3:18-19); in the earthly realm it began as the serpent and the forbidden fruit (Moses 7:32), and is now more complex (Moroni 7:12-13); and in the eternal realms we find a return to the same principle found in Abraham 3:18-19, in terms of governing greater and lesser reckoning (3:9).

Because of our will, I think there are certain points in our decision-making where God does not know what we will choose until we have done so. He certainly knows the thoughts and intents of our hearts, and I suppose with utmost immediacy, as with all that we say and do, but He does not know our will until we reveal it through these choices. This is why He uses His omniscience and omnipotence to intervene whenever necessary and possible, and yet not always enjoy the fulfillment of His will. He comprehends all, as evidenced by having His Son descend below and ascend above all things, but I think the Atonement had to be prepared from before the foundation of the world, and be infinite and eternal in nature, in order to cover all that could happen in mortality (which by definition is merely finite and temporal, no matter how many souls are involved), precisely because He does not fully know our will before we exercise it.

Edited by CV75
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2017 at 1:49 AM, Rob Osborn said:

Another thought to throw out there is this-  suppose it was somehow possible to capture or know all of the natural numbers as a "set" and then you were to start subtracting them out one by one. Does the cardinality of it change? Logically it must but what are you measuring it against? One could literally continue to subtract away actual numbers from this supposed set forever and ever and never change the size of it- it never would get smaller. It would always remain of an infinite cardinality, as mathmeticians call it. It wouldnt even matter if for every second that transpired your counting doubled in speed exponentially forever and ever, the set would always remain infinite never getting any smaller. Why? Because we are asking to subtract something quantifiable against an abstract concept that doesnt actually exist.

Assuming that the cardinality doesn't change is an intuitive assumption but not a logical one. Logic has rules and rigors that you haven't applied yet. We can discuss ways to make this more intuitive, but before we do I want to make sure that we're using the same terminology. What is a "set"? What can be included in a set and what, of necessity, must be excluded?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mordorbund said:

Assuming that the cardinality doesn't change is an intuitive assumption but not a logical one. Logic has rules and rigors that you haven't applied yet. We can discuss ways to make this more intuitive, but before we do I want to make sure that we're using the same terminology. What is a "set"? What can be included in a set and what, of necessity, must be excluded?

My point was to show the absolute absurdity of treating a language concept (infinity) as a number. 

The problem with infinity in numbers is that one is introducing a concept of never ending, always growing, without limit, etc, and it isnt really a number. Properly defined, infinity in numbers is a way of saying that there is no limit to the counting sequence process. So, when one says one infinity is bigger than another is counter intuitive because infinity isnt a number its merely language that is telling us it never stops counting and has no finite or knowable limit. Saying one infinity is bigger than another is the greatest admittance of absurdity that can possibly exist.

Edited by Rob Osborn
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 3/2/2017 at 9:59 AM, anatess2 said:

I don't think we are.

You said - God being omniscient would have made him evil because then he would have created us knowing we will be damned.

I said that only applies if God created us out of nothing - with Being Nothing better than Being Damned.  This would be evil.

It doesn't apply if God took existing intelligence and gave us spirit bodies capable of choice - because being capable of choice is better than existing without it even if that choice ends up in damnation.  This is not evil.

It comes down to this -

Did God raise Lucifer with a perfect foreknowledge he would become perdition?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Late to the party, but here goes. "Let us make man in our image..." But man already existed, though in spirit. So where did we all as spirits originate? What was our estate before the spirit. Intelligences? Consciousnesses? Now this is getting deep into LDS theology, I know. If God always existed because there is no beginning and no end, then we also always existed because there is no beginning and no end. We simply have not attained to the estates that God has attained. We have barely ascended to attain this estate, having kept our tabernacles of clay, being "made" from the dust. But in God's "house" are many "mansions." This mortal body, which I now possess may be "upgraded." We have always existed and have always had agency. We just haven't all yet ascended or been "saved" or "exalted" by God's power and grace to partake of and inherit the glory, which He has. But His foreknowledge of things does not remove our agency. We simply can choose not to ascend any more. Lucifer did and his followers who chose not to keep their "first estate." There will always be an opposition in all things. Notice God simply doesn't "kill" or "destroy" Satan and his followers? He just reserves a place for them where they can have their own place, dark as it is, because that is what they choose. So can there be free will when God knows all things? Of course! And He does not prevent people from choosing to depart His ways. He just has foreknowledge of the kinds of Intelligences who will at some point in eternity choose one path or another. And why in His infinite love and mercy, provides a Savior for those of us who are learning by our mistakes to master this estate. 

Edited by skalenfehl
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, anatess2 said:

Yes.

So how does that make God evil?

It would make God evil because it would require God to set up Lucifer for an automatic failure. God didnt say "alright, now its time to create perdition". God doesnt create any of his works for the purpose of evil. After He creates them they are on their own to choose to obey or disobey. 

To believe that God would knowingly create and raise Satan for failure beforehand doesnt make any sense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • pam unfeatured this topic
  • pam featured this topic

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share