Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
One may make a free will decision that is known to all without it being a forced choice, even if the choice involved accepting negative consequences.
What does this "free will decision" have to do with God? Each person is born into a certain set of arbitrary conditions for which no choice was offered, and these conditions will largely determine the course of that person's life. Beyond that, choices concerning the course taken during one's life are free will decisions. But if no God exists, then these free will decisions reflect a natural state. There is no obvious connection between the presumed existence of a deity that promises or grants free will, and that which would be a natural state anyway.
Or to put it another way, God cannot offer me something which would have been mine anyway without God.
At this very moment does god know, regardless of any choices I make, if my final destination is heaven or hell?
Be honest
Well, for starters, since I do not believe in any god, it actually has no application. Within the theoretical which you proposed, an "omniscient and omnipotent god" you were fusing knowledge and cause. If I threw a piece of raw meat to a pack of dogs, I might know that the alpha dog in the pack will wind up with it, but that isn't me causing the alpha dog to prevail.
Oh, I see it. But not until recently. I still consider myself Christian and still go to church, but I am struggling with my faith. I used to be very much like what you said about being on auto-pilot.
I am Catholic and the whole sex scandal (that never seems to end) finally made me step back and say, "who, what, where, why, and how?" to a lot of our practices. And I finally started digging deeper into things because I need to know the answers to these questions. The more I read (even the Bible itself) the more confused I get. Too many things conflict, the God of the Old Testament is nothing like what I was taught God was like, etc.
I am still trying to figure things out for myself and have been focusing on the history of Christianity.
Interestingly enough, one early Christian group (they were deemed heretics by the proto-orthodox) believed that the God of the Old Testament was not the God of Jesus and was an evil God. I can see it when I read these Bible stories.
Anyway, just wanted to speak up. I am going back to lurking and reading this forum as I have been for a couple of months now. There are some really fascinating topics here (and knowledgeable people).
By the way, you seem pretty smart to me. Maybe smarter than me. So don't knock yourself too much.
Aw thanks TMBG, I think you're smarter than you give yourself credit for also. I honestly can't keep up with the true intellectuals on this forum but I can add to the conversation on occasion and I think you should do the same. NO more lurking! We welcome anyone, even believers as long as they're not down-grading or proselytizing. I understand completely the questioning of faith, it seemed like a long journey for me into agonostism/atheism but actually it really didn't take that long after I started to question the eternal hell belief.
I tried Universalism because they don't believe in the traditional fire and brimstone hell, but even that didn't fly after a while. It's the belief in the bible god that ultimately shut down the whole thing for me. Contradictions abound in that book or collection of books written by men who were obviously delusional and smoking something or doing magic mushrooms, whichever the case but it's totally and utterly unbelievable imo.
Especially Revelation. I mean, really? We are supposed to decipher the ramblings of an obvious drug addict? It is so bizarre and if we're wrong we're wrong, but I don't believe any of that nonsense is "the word of god". I still like to think that we have some sort of afterlife but if we don't how will we even know? It's cool to speculate but nobody knows anything for certain so it all boils down to blind faith. Which I don't have any longer - and it's the best thing that ever happened to me.
What does this "free will decision" have to do with God? Each person is born into a certain set of arbitrary conditions for which no choice was offered, and these conditions will largely determine the course of that person's life. Beyond that, choices concerning the course taken during one's life are free will decisions. But if no God exists, then these free will decisions reflect a natural state. There is no obvious connection between the presumed existence of a deity that promises or grants free will, and that which would be a natural state anyway.
Or to put it another way, God cannot offer me something which would have been mine anyway without God.
My response was to a hypothetical which postulated an omniscient, omnipotent deity. See my response to The Last Amalekite 1Sam15 above.
If we postulate an omnipotent deity, we pretty much have every possibility covered, even the contradictions. An entity which we concede is capable of anything, would be capable of installing free will while simultaneously knowing every choice in advance, but not causing those choices. And how can you argue with that within the hypothetical? We began by saying it could do anything, so it is not subject to any limitations. Can it create a weight it cannot lift? Of course. Can it lift that unliftable weight? No problem, it's omnipotent.
Well, for starters, since I do not believe in any god, it actually has no application. Within the theoretical which you proposed, an "omniscient and omnipotent god" you were fusing knowledge and cause. If I threw a piece of raw meat to a pack of dogs, I might know that the alpha dog in the pack will wind up with it, but that isn't me causing the alpha dog to prevail.
Ah. This is the 'Hairdresser' fallacy. You are familiar with that one? "I can only cut their hair if they come to me". And you can only throw the meat to the dogs,, not control which one gets the most. But God can cut everyone's hair and ensure that everyone gets an equal share of meat - if He exists. If the hair doesn't get cut and the Alpha dog prevails, then it works as though God either isn't there or isn't going to instil some basic equality and fairness. The Free Will argument fails and always has. It only works if God has no morals,, empathy or existence.
But God can cut everyone's hair and ensure that everyone gets an equal share of meat .
Or not....it is omnipotent. An omnipotent entity would not be subject to the limits of our logic. Just because we can't see or understand how it could pull certain things off would not mean that it cannot. In fact, if there was something it could not do, it would not be all powerful, which would be altering the hypothetical.
Or not....it is omnipotent. An omnipotent entity would not be subject to the limits of our logic. Just because we can't see or understand how it could pull certain things off would not mean that it cannot.
Devil's advocate, eh? That is merely taking refuge in "there must be some good explanation, even if we can't know what it is". This is illogical, like all the Theistic claims. Occam's razor says that the explanation requiring the least number of logical entities to explain the observed data ("the simplest explanation that fits the facts") is the one to be preffered. This means that the smart money goes on a god that can (supposedly) do anything but doesn't when by all reason it should probably isn';t there at all rather than on opting for some hypotherical explanation that nobody has actually been able to come up with.
Of course the simplest explanation that explain all the facts about the flat earth claim - that it is flat and all the photos are fakes - is actually a multiplication of logical entities (that the whole world is engaged in a massive conspiracy to conceal the truth, apparently to discredit one or two nuts who don't rally matter) and that the evidence of a round earth is the heavily validated explanation (this applies to evolution as well, to give a more debated matter) is the better option.
Nobody knows anything 100% of course, but as far as making models of the real world goes, logical and evidence are the best tools to use. Indeed the only ones that have a track record of valid results - the others keep being debunked. And thus the round earth, evolution and a god not actually intervening if not actually not existing is the preferred logical option.
One can then dismiss logic (and it would be tempting for an apologist in respect of the parable of the barber) as a mere human convention. But, aside from it being based on the reality of the world (the parable of the bush and the boulder explains that (1), any apologist who dismissed scientific evidence and logic in that way, has no business ever appealing to it for support ever again.
Cue " cor, you wrote such a huge amount in trying to dismiss my simple claim that methinks you protesteth too much and therefore you must know that I'm right.
To which I recite Arq Atheist Axiom No. 5 "It takes far less words to say "There are fairies at the bottom of my garden that to explain why there probably aren't".
(1) I need a promise of a rep before I'll post it.
Each person is born into a certain set of arbitrary conditions for which no choice was offered, and these conditions will largely determine the course of that person's life. Beyond that, choices concerning the course taken during one's life are free will decisions.
Actually, no, and your own statement contradicts.
By the time you have 5 years, you've experienced enough to shape your future, and the choices you think you are making freely are not free choices at all, because they've been dictated by the way you were shaped.
It sounds tautological, but you need only look at so-called "battered women."
They've been programmed since birth to do exactly that, so it's not really a free choice for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Grandstander
In fact, if there was something it could not do, it would not be all powerful, which would be altering the hypothetical.
Apparently, gods cannot heal amputees. All gods struggle tremendously with that and prayer is totally utterly useless. A gambling drunken atheist has the same odds as pristine christian who prays 100x a day.
As far as disproving a biblical god - it's not my job! I could care less. That is why they call us humans because we make mistakes. Some followers will eventually see the light and others will not. If they want to squander their time and money we do not have any say or would they listen to us.
It is important that we protect our own beliefs or lack of them - we do have that right. While I do not think it is my job to change their minds; I do not think it is their job to try to change my mind.
Devil's advocate, eh? That is merely taking refuge in "there must be some good explanation, even if we can't know what it is".
It was yet one more example of employing the Sagan identified "Dragon in my garage" argument where the one doing the asserting simply alters the character of the deity to explain the logical shortcomings.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
That is merely taking refuge in "there must be some good explanation, even if we can't know what it is". This is illogical, like all the Theistic claims. Occam's razor says that the explanation requiring the least number of logical entities to explain the observed data ("the simplest explanation that fits the facts") is the one to be preffered. This means that the smart money goes on a god that can (supposedly) do anything but doesn't when by all reason it should probably isn';t there at all rather than on opting for some hypotherical explanation that nobody has actually been able to come up with.
