Free Will

When I visited Asia last year, our local guide in Siem Reap told us about how he killed some chlidren to stay alive. Is he a bad person? I'm not sure; I can't make judgements when I myself have never been in a similar circumstance.

It's logical to say "I would never do such a thing," but how sure are we?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

. . . The problem here is that God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. His knowledge cannot be wrong. There is not a single event that he has not foreseen.

When God made the Universe he could see every possible result of what he was doing. Which means he could not create something without knowing what the results would be, and without knowing how it would be affected (and effect) the things around it. . .

Once again I remind you that God is under no obligation to conform his purpose to your definitions.

The only conclusion one can reach from your premise is that all the evil and misery that humans have experienced at one time existed only in the mind of God and he deliberately set it in motion when he created sentient beings.

This might provide a convenient reason for you to eschew the idea of a loving God to whom you bear a responsibility.

Bada bing bada boom. You may now be like God, knowing the difference between good and bad.

But you are on your own.

0 Replies

Oh, I'm reminded of a story my mom told me once...

A preacher had been preaching about laying your lives down completely for Jesus. Even to the point of becoming martyrs for His sake. The congregation shouted all the hallelujah's and amens a person could take! There had been several sermons about this over a period of time. One Sunday the church was full as usual, everything was going along as normal, when suddenly some men with ski masks and guns busted in the doors yelling, "Stand up and be counted if you are ready to die for Jesus!" They stood up alright, and ran right out the doors. When it was all said and done there were about four people left in that church. The guys with the guns took off their ski masks and said, "Ok Pastor, are you ready to have church now?" As it turns out the masked gunmen were the associate pastor and a couple of ushers.

I don't know if I told that just right. I think that actually happened somewhere if I remember correctly. But the point is, you are right CI. We don't know. We just don't. It is easy to say, "Why I NEVER!" But there's really no way to tell if you would or wouldn't unless you were put in the situation, regardless of what it was.

0 Replies

Quote:

When I visited Asia last year, our local guide in Siem Reap told us about how he killed some chlidren to stay alive. Is he a bad person? I'm not sure; I can't make judgements when I myself have never been in a similar circumstance.

It's logical to say "I would never do such a thing," but how sure are we?

Well yes, I agree with you on that.

Is he a bad person? If you mean in terms of personality, not necessarily, but even though a certain action may be understandable, it does not make it right. When push comes to shove, if you are right there witnessing the incident progressing, you will have to choose to do something.

Yes, I'm not sure what I would do in such a situation, but it really shouldn't matter to the ethical merit of the action. Anything less than that just seems to me like I'm rationalizing my actions. A bit conservative/hardline maybe, but that's what I think 2 Cents

.

Quote:

Once again I remind you that God is under no obligation to conform his purpose to your definitions.

And who speaks for God or of God's ability?

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

. . . The problem here is that God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. His knowledge cannot be wrong. There is not a single event that he has not foreseen.

When God made the Universe he could see every possible result of what he was doing. Which means he could not create something without knowing what the results would be, and without knowing how it would be affected (and effect) the things around it. . .

neologist wrote:

Once again I remind you that God is under no obligation to conform his purpose to your definitions.

I have not delineated god's purpose as per my above quoted text. I ask, where is the logic in your response as per my above quoted text? Outside of my above quoted text but inclusive in my same post the only delineated purpose of God I referred to was he is obligated to do the most good. Are you arguing against this?

neologist wrote:

The only conclusion one can reach from your premise is that all the evil and misery that humans have experienced at one time existed only in the mind of God and he deliberately set it in motion when he created sentient beings.

Well, I said quite a bit more than just the two paragraphs you quoted, and it went directly to both god's and human's lack of free will. As of yet you have not argued against my lack of free will premise, you've only said there is no other conclusion one can draw but your "evil and misery" one. You have not said why there is no other conclusion to be drawn, nor shown a flaw in my argument as per lack of free will.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

What do you mean your existence is determined by your true Self? Hit me with it, man.

That was the excuse JLNobody used when his mom tried to get him to clean his room Confused

0 Replies

I think "hit me with it man" has more impact if JLN's father told him to clean his room. LOL

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

When I visited Asia last year, our local guide in Siem Reap told us about how he killed some chlidren to stay alive. Is he a bad person? I'm not sure; I can't make judgements when I myself have never been in a similar circumstance.

It's logical to say "I would never do such a thing," but how sure are we?

Unless we're talking self defense (i.e. the 'children' were going to kill him first) then it's hard to see how you can avoid saying this was wrong.

Oh but I forgot. You are the one who never[/u] imposes your personal moral code on ANYONE else, and you never[/u] judge anyone else's actions to be wrong.

Unless they disagree with you politically. We could pull up many posts to show this.

Or unless they disagree with you on religion. Then you are eloquent in telling folks how wrong they are.

But killing kids? Well you just can't seem to make yourself say that it's wrong.

What's wrong with this picture, folks?

0 Replies

People like real life will never understand what the following article says about this administration and Americans to the world. I disagree whole-heartedly with this administrations policies and actions - 100 percent. They do not represent me as an American citizen. They are criminals that belongs in prison.

I gladly defend my position to the likes of real life who hasn't a clue.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

. . . Outside of my above quoted text but inclusive in my same post the only delineated purpose of God I referred to was he is obligated to do the most good. Are you arguing against this? . . .

He also is the one who gets to define what is good and set the timetable for its accomplishment.

You are fond of the word hubris.

It applies also to those who would apply their standards to those of God.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:
. . . The problem here is that God knows everything that has happened and everything that will happen. His knowledge cannot be wrong. There is not a single event that he has not foreseen.

When God made the Universe he could see every possible result of what he was doing. Which means he could not create something without knowing what the results would be, and without knowing how it would be affected (and effect) the things around it. . .
Once again I remind you that God is under no obligation to conform his purpose to your definitions.

What is your definition, neo?

Quote:

The only conclusion one can reach from your premise is that all the evil and misery that humans have experienced at one time existed only in the mind of God and he deliberately set it in motion when he created sentient beings.

There is no definition of God that makes any sense. I think Chumly is highlighting the problem that God's existence would be a contradiction.

Quote:

This might provide a convenient reason for you to eschew the idea of a loving God to whom you bear a responsibility.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

. . . What is your definition, neo?

. . . There is no definition of God that makes any sense. I think Chumly is highlighting the problem that God's existence would be a contradiction.

My definition is his name, Yahweh or Jehovah, which means 'he who causes to become'.

Once, when speaking to Moses he referred to himself as "I shall prove to be what I shall prove to be." (Exodus 3:14), indicating that He will become whatever is necessary to accomplish his purpose.

The bible could be all hogwash, of course; but if it is true, then we cannot by the stroke of a pen, declare God incapable of anything.

0 Replies

It sounds like your god, Neo, is unbothered/uneffected by internal contradiction or logicial paradox?
Maybe real life IS on the right track Razz

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

It sounds like your god, Neo, is unbothered/uneffected by internal contradiction or logicial paradox?
Maybe real life IS on the right track

Internal contradiction?

Logical paradox?

Ignoring the fact that no logical paradox has been demonstrated, what part of 'he'll do whatever it takes' do we not understand?

Or I should say: If we don't understand, whose reasoning is flawed?

0 Replies

Internal contradiction : a god that is simultaniously willfully ignorant and omniscient.
The extent of elasticity you are willing to lend to your exegesis to circumvent this is to me perplexing.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

echi wrote:
. . . What is your definition, neo?

. . . There is no definition of God that makes any sense. I think Chumly is highlighting the problem that God's existence would be a contradiction.
My definition is his name, Yahweh or Jehovah, which means 'he who causes to become'.

Is that it?

0 Replies

Like Nature, a God, must also transcend logical contradiction. It is the Rationalist's error to think that Nature has a logical anatomy identical to that of his mind.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Internal contradiction : a god that is simultaniously willfully ignorant and omniscient.
The extent of elasticity you are willing to lend to your exegesis to circumvent this is to me perplexing.

The word omniscient does not appear in the bible. Strictly defined, it imposes a limitation on God's will. Therefore, it cannot be correctly applied to God.

The ability to know is not the same as being forced to know.

I've used this example before, but God is under no more compulsion to know your eventuality than you or I are required to read the last page of the whodunit.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

neologist wrote:
echi wrote:
. . . What is your definition, neo?

. . . There is no definition of God that makes any sense. I think Chumly is highlighting the problem that God's existence would be a contradiction.
My definition is his name, Yahweh or Jehovah, which means 'he who causes to become'.

Is that it?

We can never know the totality of God's attributes. Is that what you mean?

0 Replies

Ok, so 'omniscient' is not a property of your god?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know