Omnipresence indicates that one senses all going ons, if this is so, shouldn’t it know all variables at all times? By inferring that the a divine entity is one but not the other means that it is plagued by the same sensory, calculative, and analytical deficiencies as humans. The Socialist Calculation problem must also apply to God. 
I don’t want to get off subject but this may help when you have time. William Lane Craig is one of the foremost theistic philosophers I know.www.reasonablefaith.org/site/PageServer?pagename=scholarly_articles_divine_omniscience - 38k
There’s a difference between being “present” everywhere at the current time and knowing the future. So god didn’t know if Eve was going to eat the apple or not but he was there when it happened, and god doesn’t know if you’ll end up in hell or not until you are judged but he will still be present with you even in hell or heaven. Now, I’m not really trying to prove this point but I’m just reiterating what I was told was the belief by my fellow Evangelical scholars.
Thanks I’ll take a look, Mises.org is really good at piling up homework and knowledge for me to read and learn but I love it!
I don’t know what “Evangelical scholars” you’ve been consulting, but that’s not a mainstream view by any stretch of the imagination. God is generally posited to be omniscient, omnipotent and omnipresent. There is no dissonance between free will and God’s knowledge of the future. God exists outside of time (as time is His creation). He therefore knows all events, but this does not mean that He directly causes them, any more than someone watching a football game causes a touchdown. He does directly interfere at times, but never without reason, and never in contradiction with His character.
As He is omniscient, he cannot fall victim to the socialist calculation problem, as he has all information in perpetuity, therefore knowing the exact needs both present and future for goods and services.
On Gary North: he is somewhat libertarian, but taken out of context one can butcher him. In the real world, he does not believe in the likelihood of the establishment of anarcho-capitalism (or, ideally, anarcho-theocratic communities that rely on private property rights to enforce Christian principles within their borders). Given the existence of (and continued demand for) the state, North supports the non-violent takeover of the state by Christians. Non-Christians would be free to leave. I do not personally agree with many of North’s propositions for a Christian state, but anarcho-theocratic communities are plausible and totally compatible with anarcho-capitalism.
He doesn’t want communities; he wants a state. And not just any state: the American one. Meaning he is the same any statist political movement. Which is a real problem since I live in America and am not Christian. It’s a possible existential threat to myself; in fact, a real one physical threat. It is a threat to American Christians who tolerate other religions or are anarchists. And the ‘if they don’t like they can leave’, is already the bad premise of existing political hegemony. A state is not compatible with anarchism.
The only way it is compatible is in the sense that anarchist and statist societies may or may not attack one another. But again, this is like saying Libertopia and Canada won’t attack each other. And that for this reason Canada and Canadian political ideology is compatible with anarchism. What he proposes is not compatible with anarchism in any way imaginable. He doesn’t want anarchism for himself or other Christians, and does not promote it. Period. Ergo, he is not a libertarian or anarchist. Ergo, trying to derive anarchism from his brand of Christianity is mistake. Sure there are Christian anarchists, but he is not one of them.
The only thing he is libertarian on is gold standard and limited religious liberty in the interim until Christianity can gain power. It’s just a bait and switch Libertarianism.
Someone else mentioned William Lane Craig. I have seen this particular video and know his name. Does he promote libertarianism? I checked his proof of God; it seems he is taking some ideas from Islamic theology called ‘Kalam cosmological argument’. He calls himself an Evangelical, but I would agree that his theory is not mainstream. That doesn’t mean it is better or worse. But it’s not what most Christians are already believing, and he seems like such a middle-brow old fashioned philosopher type, that it is unlikely that most will ever read his books even if they were good. And again, if he is correct, why doesn’t he write about Christianity and Libertarianism as intertwined? Why doesn’t he say this is obvious, if as people state that the Bible clearly states such beliefs? I see one of his topics is ‘moral relativism’. Does he talk about the immorality of the state? And how the state is the furtherance of moral relativism since different people require different moral rules?
William Lane Craig is in no way a libertarian. He is a typical Rick Warren / Sean Hannity-esque conservative hack.
@JohnEss
Man if only that was your 666th post on a religion thread. Or does making it the 667th post on the religion thread make more poetic sense?
Modern scholars have refuted the Iron Maiden Cosmological Theory. Which is one of the greatest misunderstandings in the history of philosophy.
Originally, when ‘Number of the Beast’ was written by Iron Maiden, heavy metal groups and their disciples in theology had always translated the book of revelations as saying ἑξακόσιοι ἑξήκοντα ἕξ (six hundred and sixty six). But recently, Oxford scholars have said that it means ἑξακόσιοι δέκα ἕξ (six hundred and sixteen). This is an important distinction.
Today’s Christians have been rejecting Beelzebub, I presume, based on completely outmoded beliefs about the new testament. In many of my debates they are saying these same arguments. It’s clearly a strawman. Because their names added up to 666 using hebrew gematria, the reputation of Nero, the Pope, and Hitler were considered valid reasons to reject Satan out of hand under the Iron Maiden Cosmological Theory. Now I think Satan’s name can be cleared of his connection with these men. And I think the honest Christian has to admit that there is a Satan. And we must worship him and sacrifice babies unto his alter.
Not exactly ancap, but arguing in favor of a free market economy from a Catholic POV:
John, that “someone” would be me. My reason for posting what I did was as a reference for another user in the hope of helping him better understand the concept of Divine omniscience and not as a statement re: William Lane Craig’s political philosophy, whatever it may be. Nothing more.
Eric, can you point me toward some statements or material documenting your assertions? Maybe even first-hand knowledge? I would be very interested in exploring this subject. Thanks.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c-ieOvFsXmg&feature=related - Universal health care = bad, Jesus doesn’t approve of feminism
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IvtjwCNCzSA - Homosexuality is a psychological disorder
Marriage Advice - "Wives: You need to realize what your husband’s #1 need in marriage is, what he wants most from you: sex! Yes, frequent, enthusiastic sex! If you do this, you will have a happy hubby, indeed. Unfortunately, here we confront one of those huge disconnects between men and women (you know, the Venus and Mars thing). A man achieves intimacy with the woman he loves through sexual intercourse; but a woman views intimacy as a pre-requisite for sexual intercourse. So if you’re sensing emotional distance from your spouse, what do you do? You seem to be at an impasse. If you find yourselves in this situation, then my advice is that it is the wife who should yield and be open to her husband’s advances. Otherwise what you’re doing is using sex as a weapon: saying in effect, “You first meet my emotional needs or I’m going to withhold sex from you.” That’s manipulative and unloving."
http://www.reasonablefaith.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=5887 - Listed under the podcast “Go Vote!”, praises social democracy, “values voter”, supports cutting off funding for stem cell research
And if you further peruse his “audio blog” (why not just call it a podcast? ), you will find a couple more in favor of the Defense of Marriage Act and criticizing Obama on the Ground Zero Mosque. And I think he was making fun of Nancy Pelosi in one, but don’t quote me on that. Which is not to say that everything he has said in these contexts aren’t at least somewhat accurate (his portrayal of Islam perhaps and I assume he doesn’t support universal healthcare, but I think Jesus would pick anarcho-communism above all political arrangements, but what do I know). I’m just saying it appears to be the case that he toes the conservative line mixed in with some religiously inspired beliefs.
"Wives: You need to realize what your husband’s #1 need in marriage is, what he wants most from you: sex! Yes, frequent, enthusiastic sex! If you do this, you will have a happy hubby, indeed. Unfortunately, here we confront one of those huge disconnects between men and women (you know, the Venus and Mars thing). A man achieves intimacy with the woman he loves through sexual intercourse; but a woman views intimacy as a pre-requisite for sexual intercourse. So if you’re sensing emotional distance from your spouse, what do you do? You seem to be at an impasse. If you find yourselves in this situation, then my advice is that it is the wife who should yield and be open to her husband’s advances. Otherwise what you’re doing is using sex as a weapon: saying in effect, “You first meet my emotional needs or I’m going to withhold sex from you.” That’s manipulative and unloving."
I think this is one-hundred per cent accurate.
Woman: "It is the man who should yield and be open to my emotional advances. Otherwise what you’re doing is using my emotional needs against me as a weapon. Saying in effect, “you first give me sex or I’m not going to attempt to be in the mood to connect emotionally with you.’ That’s manipulative and unloving.”
There are many amazing theologians who fail utterly when it comes to pragmatic application.
Woman: "It is the man who should yield and be open to my emotional advances. Otherwise what you’re doing is using my emotional needs against me as a weapon. Saying in effect, “you first give me sex or I’m not going to attempt to be in the mood to connect emotionally with you.’ That’s manipulative and unloving.”
No, this is inaccurate. What men want is sex, and everyone knows it. It’s trivial to provide, figuring out what sort of obscure emotional attention people want is not.
Furthermore the problem with most women is not that they do not receive emotional attention it is that they drive men away from giving them emotional attention. They can not decide whether they want a ‘bad boy’ or a ‘provider’ and thereby falsify (to themselves and others) what they claim to want; while acting schizophrenically to appeal to one type and then another. Then when men get fed up with this incoherent inability to choose between types they close up on women and women blame it on men.
Men may be ‘emotionally distant’ but it is no secret on how to connect with them, their demands are not generally complex or expensive. The same can not be said for women, who often demand things that are not even logically compatible. Even aside from logical impossibilities, it is pretty much a psychological impossibility to have both a lover and a provider. That’s just not how people work.
Men may be ‘emotionally distant’ but it is no secret on how to connect with them, their demands are not generally complex or expensive. The same can not be said for women, who often demand things that are not even logically compatible. Even aside from logical impossibilities, it is pretty much a psychological impossibility to have both a lover and a provider. That’s just not how people work.No, this is inaccurate. What men want is sex, and everyone knows it. It’s trivial to provide, figuring out what sort of obscure emotional attention people want is not.
Furthermore the problem with most women is not that they do not receive emotional attention it is that they drive men away from giving them emotional attention. They can not decide whether they want a ‘bad boy’ or a ‘provider’ and thereby falsify (to themselves and others) what they claim to want; while acting schizophrenically to appeal to one type and then another. Then when men get fed up with this incoherent inability to choose between types they close up on women and women blame it on men.
Men may be ‘emotionally distant’ but it is no secret on how to connect with them, their demands are not generally complex or expensive. The same can not be said for women, who often demand things that are not even logically compatible. Even aside from logical impossibilities, it is pretty much a psychological impossibility to have both a lover and a provider. That’s just not how people work.No, this is inaccurate. What men want is sex, and everyone knows it. It’s trivial to provide, figuring out what sort of obscure emotional attention people want is not.
Furthermore the problem with most women is not that they do not receive emotional attention it is that they drive men away from giving them emotional attention. They can not decide whether they want a ‘bad boy’ or a ‘provider’ and thereby falsify (to themselves and others) what they claim to want; while acting schizophrenically to appeal to one type and then another. Then when men get fed up with this incoherent inability to choose between types they close up on women and women blame it on men.
Men may be ‘emotionally distant’ but it is no secret on how to connect with them, their demands are not generally complex or expensive. The same can not be said for women, who often demand things that are not even logically compatible. Even aside from logical impossibilities, it is pretty much a psychological impossibility to have both a lover and a provider. That’s just not how people work.
Isn’t it a little hypocritical to demand Christians read free market oriented material if you are unwilling to read the Bible?
In what I perceive as a universe with rules I consider the concept of God to be self evident. On the other hand the aetheist might claim it is self evident by my previous statement I am crazy. So what. If you compared the concept of God to the concept of “the force” mentioned in Star Wars I would not debate you because I might be interested in what you had to say. However I do not wish to engage in a theist/atheist debate about the existence of God. I am making a statement to provide one instance of minority Christian perspective to this thread.
I believe all written language is based on symbols. I believe symbols are abstract concepts. I believe it is impossible for an abstract concept to have an absolute definition. I believe human observation is flawed. I believe the Bible is a collection of symbols recorded by humans describing the observations of humans. I believe the collection of books comprising the bible has been decided by human beings. I believe I have the ability to discern truth and if I seek truth I ought not discriminate purely based on the source. Things that fascinate me are things where a lot of people agree for no good reason. For instance why do so many people feel murder is wrong? Why do some people who have committed murder acknowledged they knew it was wrong? If math is a tool surely consistency of human observation can be a tool too. Math does not mean something is true it is simply a tool to help discern truth.
That said let’s just accept the Bible at face value as true for a moment and consider a few popular stories:
In the Garden of Eden, Adam & Eve were a kept couple. They were given free will to choose between the Tree of Life & the Tree of Self Awareness. I compare this story to if I created a robot or AI. I have programmed you to do as you wish but do not kill. As creator, I reserve jurisdiction to judge my creation. They disobeyed and God said surely you will die but I am not going to kill you now. P.S. get the hell out of my Garden. You can loiter out in the fields, you must fend for yourself, but you shall not come back into my garden.
In the story of Noah many Christians talk about a covenant God made with Noah. The covenant I read states God made a covenant with all creation and if anything Noah was more like a notary, witnessing the deal.
Under Moses many Christians talk about the Ten Commandmants are for us all to get along. I read the commandments of a jealous God and when God stated thou shall not kill I don’t think it had much to do with whether or not you and I get along. I think the concept is more like if I kill you I have deprived God the opportunity of you choosing to love God.
Under the tribal government of Isaac which some Christians refer to citing how government should work in a theocracy, I usually do not hear Christians include an important part. God’s presence. Isaac asked God how would the people follow him and asked God to reveal himself. God promised Isaac to send forth his presence. So if we are to return to some Christians vision of tribal theocratic government I want to know God’s presence is supervising the show because they usually omit that detail.
Let us not forget the Israelites rebelled against God demanding a King. God did tell David not to worry because by demanding a king they were rejecting God as their king. God did also get involved in politics selecting Kings in the books of Kings. But we are talking about the 12 tribes of Jacob (Jacob was renamed to Israel).
I also call out my fellow Christians on the book of Malachi because on one hand they talk about the divine purpose of government doing God’s work and on Sunday they advocate double taxation condoning tithing.
Skipping ahead to the NT:
I do not like how the story of render unto Ceasar what is Ceasar’s is usually interpreted. Jesus did ask what inscription is on the coin and I read it as if you are trading using the intellectual property of Ceasar to determine value, render unto Ceasar what is Ceasars (aka give Ceasar his cut).
I am a huge fan of the teachings of Jesus Christ because I believe the message is love.
With regards to some of Peter’s writings I do believe it is not my job to build my own cross and set myself on it to be crucified. I do believe I ought to give testimony to what I discern as truth.
Here is my testament:
Unfortunately for me, my life represents a rebellion against God. The Bible teaches ye though I walk through the valley of death I shall fear no evil because they rod and thy staff shall comfort me (or something like that). My entire life I have rejected the rod and staff because whenever tribulation or persectuion has come my way I say… God… I don’t need your rod and staff because I know best how to avoid this tribulation or persectuion.
Even worse I question why I should love God. After all there are only two religions 1) God is God or 2) man is God. I want to know where is the justice in punishing me for the sins of previous generations I never knew at the moment of birth. I question that I do not know my own name, only the name other people have called me. I question the justice of God coercing my allegiance with eternal judgement when God has not revealed himself to me.
If there is to be salvation I am not worthy of it but fortunately for me I can surely place my hopes and faith in Jesus Christ because I believe the teachings of Jesus Christ are good fruit.
I take away from the Bible concepts of honor and dishonor. Spinning the wives example from earlier in the thread. If I desire multiple wives I ought not commit in vows to one wife. I ought to only commit to vows that leave room for other wives. If that is not acceptable to a potential wife so be it, I ought not take her as a wife. If I am walking in the righteous path a wife ought not rebel against me because a wife is under the dominion of her husband. On the other hand if a wife is rebelling against me I might want to look in the mirror and reflect whether or not I am on the righteous path. If I am not on the righteous path I might want to take a moment and reclaim my honor with God. Now the part about not taking a wife unless she agrees to let you pursue other wives might seem like common sense but how many people fail every year in keeping vows to one wife? It may be common sense but I doubt you can call being honest in vows taking a wife easy. How many people state in their vows I desire to take you as wife today but tomorrow I might desire to blimp the secretary and I just wanted to let you know in advance so you can back out now?
If you have a very libertarian perspective I challenge you to actually read the book you are blindly criticizing. I think you will find it has more libertarian concepts that what is commonly conveyed in mainstream religious conversations. I think this is partly because if you call many Christian churches they will tell you they are in the business of saving souls when in my opinion they should be in the business of distributing teachings of love.
Matticus Rex, I’m curious about what you think of this post. Did you miss it?
“There are many amazing theologians who fail utterly when it comes to pragmatic application.”
Whether it is religious or secular, a disconnect between theory and application is a real problem. It would seem if your theory is great, it should produce some application. Not just sound smart and like it understands logical terminology.
This seems to be the problem with all medieval philosophy, too. There is a lot about Aristotle and Plato and syllogistic reasoning. Not so much about mixing syllogisms with actual observation, which was stressed by Francis Bacon and others in the renaissance. In fact that seems to be a conceit that something is true simply for being ‘reasonable’ or within one’s own mind. But really it is just sophism, remedial logic, and ignorance/resistance to observation and application.
Sweet Mises, it’s obnoxious when you do that.