For how could anything fall outside the causal control of an omnipotent being? — lambda

What if the omnipotent being chooses not to exercise complete causal control over everything? Surely that power would be among those that such a being would possess.

It looks like Calvinism is right after all. — lambda

Calvinism does not strictly entail theological determinism in the global sense that you describe. It simply holds that God has predestined everyone either to salvation or to damnation. Some Calvinists do go a step farther and attribute everything that happens to the sovereignty of God, but not all.

Regrettably for Calvin, Heisenberg discovered that God does indeed play dice.

What if the omnipotent being chooses not to exercise complete causal control over everything? — aletheist

That doesn't seem to make any logical sense, though. The being can't for example just create some another being and try to pass it off as autonomous and pretend that it doesn't know or isn't responsible for what the new being is going to do, because obviously all the new being's decisions will follow from the omnipotent being's decisions one way or another.

The being can't for example just create some another being and try to pass it off as autonomous and pretend that it doesn't know or isn't responsible for what the new being is going to do ... — zookeeper

The OP stipulated that we are talking about an omnipotent being. It sounds like you are suggesting that there is something that such a being cannot do.

But God might be precisely the hidden determinant of the apparently uncaused events. How would we ever know?

Of course that doesn't fit the vision of God I favour at all. ;)

Hard theological determinism (or 'predestination') seems to be a logical consequence of God's omnipotence. — lambda

The all-powerful, all-knowing, ever-present, God is, of course, deterministic. You can't hardly avoid it.

Such a god, however, gets in the way of another doctrine that most people like very much, and that is at least some degree of free will.

The solution is to chisel out territory where our decision making can occur freely. Otherwise, we are just doing what we are compelled to do at every instant. In such a world sin and salvation is pretty much irrelevant.

Aren't theologians being inconsistent when they say "God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnipresent and man has free will"?

Sure they are, but since God is man-made (created in our own image), we can build in however many exceptions we want. One might say there is no reason for anyone to feel guilty no matter what they did, because god determines everything. Well! Hold on, that undermines the control mechanism of guilt, which we have to keep -- otherwise people would be running around doing whatever they felt like. Can't have that!!! Obviously there is room for people to autonomously perform evil acts for which they can be hanged, or made to feel very very guilty.

Humans often screw things up, and god is no exception.

Hard theological determinism (or 'predestination') seems to be a logical consequence of God's omnipotence. For how could anything fall outside the causal control of an omnipotent being? There's simply no room in reality for any other causal agents besides God. — lambda

Or perhaps God allows things to slip through his grasp? In the same way a parent is pretty much omnipotent to a child but allows the child to do things they want to do?

God can be omniscient, and us still be free. The only thing that is necessary for this to be so, is to understand that we behave because of reasons. Things we believe. Although not born blank slates, we still need to learn what things are, and how to react to them. Part of you must know exactly what you believe about things, in order to be able to autopilot, and behave so quickly to most of it. God, knowing everyone deeply, and personally, can predict everyone's behavior, because he knows their true characters, and beliefs. People can chose the ways they behave, and it be perfectly predictable as long as it isn't baseless or random.

Freedom is a funny thing. We're living in a mirror-reality. A reflection, which we can, and do distort, and through this ability to distort our mirror-reality, we can recursively alter the real one to match our distortion. It's how we bend the rules of causality.

Freedom is a funny thing. — Wosret

Every time someone uses the word "freedom" I always have the urge to yell "OBJECTION" and demand they define what they actually mean by freedom.

Best definition of free will I can muster is the idea that one could have chosen otherwise. I don't really think it's coherent though since we have to ask why you chose what you did. In which case you basically just have to say "I dunno" since any appeals to anything else would be determinism.

Freedom isn't about choice... like picking between path one, and path two, but rather, picking up a sledgehammer and making a third path.

Shouldn't it be obvious, given that there are religions that do not posit strong determinism, and that instead put a big emphasis on free will, that strong determinism is not an unavoidable theological conclusion?

Hard theological determinism (or 'predestination') seems to be a logical consequence of God's omnipotence. For how could anything fall outside the causal control of an omnipotent being? There's simply no room in reality for any other causal agents besides God.

Suppose God exists outside of time and causality in eternity, and suppose that all history, everything which has happened from beginning to end is a memory for him. It has already happened for him, therefore for him to change it would impinge on his omnipotence His memories, similar to ours can't change or effect what has happened. Our freedom of action is not compromised by God if he is taken as in this sense.

Let's look at a few possibilities here:

God is not real: stop here.

God is real: that moves us on to:

Humans have no Knowledge of God: stop here.

Humans have knowledge of God: OK, now which humans? Who has it right? Can you prove that god is all powerful? And if so, can you prove God can only do what is logically possible?

This is why arguments based on God are just bad arguments, as when you get right down to it, whether you believe in God are not, the entire argument is based on make believe.

The problem of determinism vs. free will disolves once you recognize the divine element in humanity itself. It's not a master/slave relationship or a father/son relationship, but an artist/artwork relationship. Neither the artist or the artwork exist outside one another; they're interdependent, and they shape one another equally; the artist shapes the art and yet the art shapes the artist. Freedom is a complex, primordial aspect of divinity, and so it exists in humanity as well. Consequently, concepts like God's ominipotence, his "all-all"ness are aspects of the divine that we participate in, not math problems outside us that we have to solve.

I realize I'm basically speaking a different language than a lot of you in this thread. As to logical arguments against God's existence, you're viewing things through one eye; your depth of vision is skewed when you only use one faculty in your attempt to see.

"your depth of vision is skewed when you only use one faculty in your attempt to see"

Your depth of vision is skewed when you start making up crap as well. I love how people always think their silly religious beliefs makes them better than everyone else; but then religion is all about the ego.

" the divine element in humanity '

Please define and prove the existence of this supposed divine element.

Your depth of vision is skewed when you start making up crap as well. I love how people always think their silly religious belief makes them better than everyone else; but then religion is all about the ego. — Jeremiah

This isn't a response to my comments. I'd be curious to hear if you have any actual thoughts about them.

Please define and prove the existence of this supposed divine element. — Jeremiah

The divine element in humanity is something experienced inwardly, but it manifests outwardly in the world in different ways. Art and the creative urge in general is, to me, the purest form of the divine element breaking through into the world through humanity. But forgiveness is the most powerful manifestation of the divine. The oppressed forgiving the oppressor is a manifestation of the divine in humanity. There is no "proof", only experience. Again, you're using the wrong faculty to try to apprehend the divine when you ask for definitions and proof. It's the fundamental flaw behind fundamentalist fads like the new atheists. You have to step outside the bubble of logicism to understand this.

We're derailing the thread, though.

This isn't a response to my comments.

Yes it was and I should know, after-all it was my post. A bit egotistical of you to tell me about the aim of my post.

"The divine element in humanity is something experienced inwardly, but it manifests outwardly in the world in different ways. Art and the creative urge in general is, to me, the purest form of the divine element breaking through into the world through humanity. But forgiveness is the most powerful manifestation of the divine. The oppressed forgiving the oppressor is a manifestation of the divine in humanity. There is no "proof", only experience. Again, you're using the wrong faculty to try to apprehend the divine when you ask for definitions and proof. It's the fundamental flaw behind fundamentalist fads like the new atheists. You have to step outside the bubble of logicism to understand this."

Anthropomorphism that you are trying to validate with special insider knowledge, the same song and dance told over and over.

" You have to step outside the bubble of logicism to understand this."

I am going to suggest you have to step outside the bubble of your religious belief to truly understand them. So many people boost claims of knowledge of the "divine" it is impossible to take any of them serious. At least atheist understand that they are not all knowing, and that there is a limit to what they can know.

People who argue special religious insight are only do so because they are not smart enough to come up with a real argument.

Anthropomorphism that you are trying to validate with special insider knowledge, the same song and daces told over and over. — Jeremiah

How are you equating an inward spiritual experience with anthropomorphism?

I am going to suggest you have to step outside the bubble of your religious belief to truly understand them. — Jeremiah

Absolutely, I've done this. I "lost my faith", as they say, a few years ago. Again, you're not really addressing my comments, just trying to turn them around. Do you disagree that it's healthy for someone to step outside of the bubble of logicism, if it's a bubble they're in?

At least atheist understand that they are not all knowing, and that there is a limit to what they can know — Jeremiah

Many religious people understand this as well.

I am sorry, but the whole idea of special religious insight is a plead for authority. It is an unfalsifiable claim people use to feebly leverage a position of authoritative knowledge. It is used by the intellectually lazy and is nothing but pure ego.

Creativity, art and forgiveness are not special religious insight. Countless people have experienced the creative urge, experienced or given forgiveness (on an everyday scale), and made art. Nothing I'm talking about here is "special religious insight".

Frankly, the sweeping generalization that all people who claim to have had spiritual experience of some sort are making some bizarre plead for authority is utterly absurd.

"Creativity, art and forgiveness are not special religious insight."

I agree with that completely.