Free Will

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

kmisho wrote:

God knew a 137 vigintillion googolplexes of eons ago that I would not believe in him and you expect me to believe I have a choice in the matter NOW?

Aren't you now?

Posted: Thu Jun 05, 2008 5:21 am

missionary wrote:

Choice is not just important, it's critical to the harmony of eternity that those who exist in God's presence want to be there by their own free will. Otherwise, lucifer is correct that creation is bound by fear of God and not love for God. IF God is love then love MUST BE freely returned or it is not true love at all. Mutual true love must be a free choice between two parties.

If this is so then why does god supossedly punish nonbelievers and reward believers. If god wants people to choose to love him freely why doesnt he send believers and nonbelivers to the same type of place when they die, maybe divided by a giant golden gate, with god and his sycophants on one side and everybody else on the other?

missionary wrote:

This is the essence of our dilemma. We have knowledge of Him within us already but we trust our physical senses and logic:

What is god doing implanting knowledge of himself in us? If someone discovers this knowledge they might think that they know god exists and then love him out of fear.

Also, what would be so wrong with god making it so we can know he exists through our physical senses and logic? After all he created a world for us that requires us to rely on our physical senses and logic in order to survive. If we can 'know' god exists through some sort of god homing devise implanted in us (a god shaped hole?), then what would be so bad about knowledge of him derived in the same way we come about the information we depend on for keeping ourselves alive?

Resident Joined: Mar 26, 2008 Posts: 359

Missionary wrote:

kmisho wrote:

bagnasty wrote:

Seekah and Mocking Gods, i pretty much agree with you. It does, i think, depend on what god we are talking about. There would obviously be no possibility of anything occuring randomly in a universe with a god who is the cause of everything. Although it may be logically possible for a god to exist who creates a universe in which random, uncaused things do occur and this god knows how those things will occur in advance (im not certain something like that would be logicaly impossible), it doesnt help missionary because, whatever might be occuring randomly in our universe, if anthing, human decision making does not seem to be one of those things.

I think it's unnecessary to deal with the problem of true randomness, as it calls into question the idea of what free will even means. We can confine the issue to whether things can turn out in more than one way or not. If there is an eternal omniscience, the answer is no.

If the starting point is A and the end destination is B, then some but not all will arrive at B. The fact that A and B exists is determined by God. The creation of the participants traveling from A to B is caused and determined by God. The path traveled and whether the destination is reached is dependent upon the traveler following the map. If the traveler doesn't like the map, doesn't believe the map, or picks up a fake map, that is up to the traveler. The traveler is responsible and accountable to arrive at B, quit, not care, or claim there is a C and D destination, or sit down on the road and laugh at the other travelers.

So if someone picks up a fake map because of their birth (born with a fake map because of their location and religion of their parents), then can god really hold them accountable for this? Even if they are offered the right map, why wouldn't they just see it as they see the other hundred or so maps floating around out there?

Posted: Fri Jun 06, 2008 1:46 am

Missionary wrote:

kmisho wrote:

God knew a 137 vigintillion googolplexes of eons ago that I would not believe in him and you expect me to believe I have a choice in the matter NOW?

Aren't you now?

Only if there is no god.

Newbie Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 19

Hello.

I've just joined this forum and have read this thread with interest.
However, I find that there's a deal of circularity in some of the arguments put forward here. This can't be helpful.

Therefore I'd like to suggest the following...

* When using terms like omniscience, omipotence and free will shouldn't we define what we mean by these things? If we can agree what these mean then we can examine them within a framework of logical, rational argument.

* To help with the above I recommend going to Wikipedia and looking at what is said there about the Omnipotence Paradox. This covers a lot of what has been discussed here and it may provide some clarity on the concepts of Omnipotence (All Power) and Omniscience (All Knowledge).

* Assuming that the members do this they can then say, "I support this particular model of omniscience or that model of omnipotence." Other members, debating with them will then have a clearer idea of what is meant. By agreeing on the definitions of the terms used in an argument all parties will benefit.

* Another advantage of using the Wikipedia's models of omnipotence and omniscience is that they are clearly explained and easily understood. By using them we don't have to rely on inaccurate analogies, bad examples and poor explanations - things that muddy the waters and detract from reasoned debate.

I hope that this helps and I look forward to seeing how this discussion develops.

Thanks,

BornAgainAthiest.

Posted: Wed Jun 18, 2008 1:54 am

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

* When using terms like omniscience, omipotence and free will shouldn't we define what we mean by these things? If we can agree what these mean then we can examine them within a framework of logical, rational argument.

I'm already aware that freewill is basically a contradictory term from the get go. I use the term to mean the notion things can happen in more than one way, which is sufficient to establish the choice/no-choice dichotomy.

It may occasionally be necessary to delineate omni-types, but not very often. One Christian I was talking to once answered both the questions "can god make a rock he can't lift" and "can god lift the rock he can't life" with a very confident "yes!"

I think this is by far the prevailing view. God literally knows everything and can do anything.

Newbie Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 19

kmisho wrote:

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

* When using terms like omniscience, omipotence and free will shouldn't we define what we mean by these things? If we can agree what these mean then we can examine them within a framework of logical, rational argument.

I'm already aware that freewill is basically a contradictory term from the get go. I use the term to mean the notion things can happen in more than one way, which is sufficient to establish the choice/no-choice dichotomy.

It may occasionally be necessary to delineate omni-types, but not very often. One Christian I was talking to once answered both the questions "can god make a rock he can't lift" and "can god lift the rock he can't life" with a very confident "yes!"

I think this is by far the prevailing view. God literally knows everything and can do anything.

Hi Kmisho!

Yes, I know what you mean.

Sadly I'm all too aware of that kind of enthusiasm, having been there, done that and bought the t-shirt. In my eagerness to ascribe limitless power and ability to god I overlooked the fact that I was describing him in contradictory terms and also overlooking two pertinent descriptions of his nature in the New Testament.

"This is the message we heard of him, and declare unto you, that god is light, and in him is no darkness at all." 1 John 1:5, King James Version.

"In hope of eternal life, which god, that cannot lie, promised before the world began." Titus 1:2, KJV.

These quotes make it quite clear that...

1. God is not all things. He is light but he is not darkness. In this case I take "all things" to mean both the light and the darkness.
If I am wrong here I will freely admit it, but I think both logic and scripture are clear enough on this.

2. God cannot lie. This is a limitation on his behavior caused by his very nature. Being wholly light and having no darkness in him he cannot perform the act of telling lies. Most likely the bible will back me up on this.
Right now I can't think of any chapter and verse describing god telling lies.
Once again, I stand to be corrected on this.

So, we have now established that god does have limitations and these limits are defined by his nature.

Knowing this perhaps we can use this information as a fresh start in the debate about free will.

I hope this helps.

BornAgainAthiest.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

Cygnus wrote:

So if someone picks up a fake map because of their birth (born with a fake map because of their location and religion of their parents), then can god really hold them accountable for this? Even if they are offered the right map, why wouldn't they just see it as they see the other hundred or so maps floating around out there?

There are always signs we deny when being deceived. We often remember and admit them after the fact. You know how it goes when you look back and say, "Yeah, I noticed that but shrugged it off" or "I was going to look further into that but got sidetracked".

Truth is worth knowing and being certain about in spite of the difficulty in cutting through the complex webs spun to keep us from it.

The Learned Joined: May 21, 2008 Posts: 128

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

So, we have now established that god does have limitations and these limits are defined by his nature.

Limitation is an inaccurate term in that it connotes lack of ability, confinement, weakness, etc. God is not limited or confined in any sense of the word.

But rather....

God does not act or behave in any manner that opposes or contradicts His perfect physical or moral nature and attributes. As a result, silly or nonsensical tests and applications such as rock creating/lifting, creating smarter beings, and other set forth testing methods are simply human paradoxes of limited logic and reasoning.

Newbie Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 19

Missionary wrote:

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

So, we have now established that god does have limitations and these limits are defined by his nature.

Limitation is an inaccurate term in that it connotes lack of ability, confinement, weakness, etc. God is not limited or confined in any sense of the word.

But rather....

God does not act or behave in any manner that opposes or contradicts His perfect physical or moral nature and attributes. As a result, silly or nonsensical tests and applications such as rock creating/lifting, creating smarter beings, and other set forth testing methods are simply human paradoxes of limited logic and reasoning.

Thank you for your response Missionary.

Please note that I did not invoke (nor do i agree with) these nonsensical tests to say something meaningful about god's nature. I agreed with Kmisho's experiences (having shared the born-again christian viewpoint for a number of years) and then I used my limited human logic and reasoning to analyse two quotes from the bible.

I do not believe that this analysis (in human terms) was incorrect.
Surely it is meaningful to say that...

* There is no darkness in him

...and

* He cannot lie

...because these are quotes from the very book that is said to be his word. In terms of human logic these two quotes do provide some definition about his nature. I drew a logical conclusion from them (which I do not believe can be logically disputed) but I do concede that this conclusion must fall short of describing the nature of the unlimitable, unlimited god you advocate.

The catch is Missionary, if you say that god's nature and attributes transcend human understanding and put him above and beyond all analysis and all logic, where does this leave us?

With god securely beyond our understanding and supremely above our logic how can we know anything about him?

I look forward to your reply.

BornAgainAthiest

Posted: Tue Jun 24, 2008 2:21 am

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

Knowing this perhaps we can use this information as a fresh start in the debate about free will.

I hope this helps.

BornAgainAthiest.

I think it's interesting that freewill cannot possibly apply to god. He had no choice but to give us freewill!

Missionary is stuck on the equivocation that god both can and cannot lie. It leads nowhere.

He rabidly clings to paper-thin semantic tomfoolery to defend his impossible god. Sound familiar?

Posted: Fri Jun 27, 2008 3:38 am

Missionary wrote:

Cygnus wrote:

So if someone picks up a fake map because of their birth (born with a fake map because of their location and religion of their parents), then can god really hold them accountable for this? Even if they are offered the right map, why wouldn't they just see it as they see the other hundred or so maps floating around out there?

There are always signs we deny when being deceived. We often remember and admit them after the fact. You know how it goes when you look back and say, "Yeah, I noticed that but shrugged it off" or "I was going to look further into that but got sidetracked".

Truth is worth knowing and being certain about in spite of the difficulty in cutting through the complex webs spun to keep us from it.

And you know that you have the "Truth" and aren't being deceived how?

By some book or some pastor that says you're not?

Newbie Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 19

kmisho wrote:

BornAgainAthiest wrote:

Knowing this perhaps we can use this information as a fresh start in the debate about free will.

I hope this helps.

BornAgainAthiest.

I think it's interesting that freewill cannot possibly apply to god. He had no choice but to give us freewill!

Missionary is stuck on the equivocation that god both can and cannot lie. It leads nowhere.

He rabidly clings to paper-thin semantic tomfoolery to defend his impossible god. Sound familiar?

Hello again Kmisho!

I'm not so sure about your view of Missionary being stuck on the lying / non-lying god equivocation.

You'll note that I qualified my last response by using the phrase, "in human terms". Using human analysis to look at Missionary's replies and [his quotes from] the bible we're bound to fall short of any proper definition of the kind of god he claims to know. This isn't anyone's fault, it's just the limitations of our language and thought.

So you see Kmisho, that's why I'm looking forward to hearing from him again.

I'm hoping he can enlighten us about two things.

First, how did he obtain knowledge that is beyond human understanding?

and..

What means can he use within this forum to share that knowledge with us?

Thanks for your input,

BornAgainAthiest.

Newbie Joined: Jul 07, 2008 Posts: 20

If God inspired religion he arranged for a lot of religious leaders to minipulate peoples free will. He gave those in power the ability to deprive the majority of their free will. For more on how religious leaders minipulate people and how to avoid it see:
http://www.geocities.com/zacherystaylor/culttactics.htm

Newbie Joined: Jun 16, 2008 Posts: 19

The catch is Missionary, if you say that god's nature and attributes transcend human understanding and put him above and beyond all analysis and all logic, where does this leave us?

With god securely beyond our understanding and supremely above our logic how can we know anything about him?

I look forward to your reply.

BornAgainAthiest[/quote]

Hello again.

I'm back after my two week break and I see that there's been no response from Missionary on this topic. Perhaps he's taking a break too?

(Resuming holding pattern.)

BornAgainAthiest.


Create an account	Home · Articles · Downloads · Video Library · Forums · Chat Room · aStore