Free Will

JLN wrote:
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.

What god are you talking about here? In the bible, it says "god is love." That is a direct contradiction to your opinion.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

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?

No. I mean, is that your definition of God? Is that it?

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

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

'parently not, if it bestows necessity.

I would have given the offhand answer of yes, until challenged on this board. (By Blue, I think.)

Since then, I have not been able to find any reason to apply such a restriction.

The word implies that God would not have the power to screen things off from his purvey, that he must have known in advance all the evil and misery that would derive from the Edenic rebellion, and by extension, that he is guilty of deliberately bringing it about.

0 Replies

If he knew beforehand all that was to happen on this planet, what exactly was the purpose of jesus? He didn't need to make any sacrifice to himself to allow mankinds salvation. That in of itself is a contradiction.

0 Replies

Don't forget, everything is predetermined.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

neologist wrote:
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?

No. I mean, is that your definition of God? Is that it?

Everything I might add are related to his qualities, the qualities by which he created man in his image, namely: love, justice, wisdom, and power (free will). We can learn about these from a careful reading of the bible.

There is only one person in the universe who can truly have the title 'he who causes to become'.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

If he knew beforehand all that was to happen on this planet, what exactly was the purpose of jesus? He didn't need to make any sacrifice to himself to allow mankinds salvation. That in of itself is a contradiction.

Exactly my point, although Jesus existed long before anything else was created.

cicerone imposter wrote:

Don't forget, everything is predetermined.

OK, well THAT wasn't my point Smile

Check your email you, you, you arguer, you.

0 Replies

Okay. That makes sense. But, before I go any further, I have to ask... Why do you say "he who causes to become"? Why not "that which causes to become"? Wouldn't it make more sense? Sorry for being picky.

0 Replies

Hum.
Ok Neo.
Would you say it was within gods power to know the things he selectively decided not to know?

0 Replies

What if there was this giant energy wave coming to kill God, but he decided not to see it. Could we still have Christmas?

0 Replies

echi wrote:

Okay. That makes sense. But, before I go any further, I have to ask... Why do you say "he who causes to become"? Why not "that which causes to become"? Wouldn't it make more sense? Sorry for being picky.

Transliteration:
the causative form, the imperfect state, of the Heb. verb ha·wah´ (become); meaning "He Causes to Become".

God refers to himself as a person, male, husband, father.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

Everything I might add are related to his qualities, the qualities by which he created man in his image, namely: love, justice, wisdom, and power (free will). We can learn about these from a careful reading of the bible.

There is only one person in the universe who can truly have the title 'he who causes to become'.

If "God" created humans in his own image, then isn't our will really his will?
If so, then our will could never go against his will. And it would not be right to say that we exercise free will, independent of God, but that we share the will of God... that God's will is part of our nature.

0 Replies

cicerone imposter wrote:

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.

You have every right to hold your opinion, CI.

But you are not consistent.

Earlier, you could not state outright that cannibalism was wrong, mumbling something about it being accepted by their culture so who were you to say they were wrong?

Also you claim that you cannot say that a man who killed children did wrong.

You have told us repeatedly that you do NOT force your personal moral code on ANYONE. You have said that you do not apply your standard of right and wrong to any but yourself.

But that is clearly not the case, because there are MANY instances, like the one you just posted, where you DO say that 'XYZ is wrong'

What is that, but a statement that YOUR concept of right and wrong can and should apply to others?

That is exactly what it is. But it is exactly what you claim you do not do.

Therefore I have said you are not consistent.

0 Replies

See! real life still doesn't get it. There is nothing inconsistent in your list - except your conclusion.

You still can't see that Bush is "inconsistent." Not only inconsistent, but outright lies to everybody.

You don't see it, but the heading of the article is Bush: we don't torture.

0 Replies

neologist wrote:

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.

1) Whelp you have not answered my question naughty Neo. Are you arguing against God being obligated to do the most good or not?

2) In what way did I define how god defines what is good and what his timetable is? I did not define how god defines what is good and what his timetable is.

3) Where is the hubris? I only said God is obligated to do the most good, I made no reference to timetables or god's definition of good.

4) Hubris is a fun word, but even you must find it quite a stretch to consider that the net result of all horrors of the Nazi's and/or the net result of the centuries of all the other Jewish pogroms, must represent a net good.

5) We are now rather off the track of my original argument which was that there is no free will with god or man under the Christian idealization of god. My prior on point questions and views remain.

0 Replies

Doktor S wrote:

Would you say it was within gods power to know the things he selectively decided not to know?

He would have to know everything first in order to know what he did not want to know, then upon knowing everything first, he could selectively decide not to know, but upon selectively deciding not to know, he would not be able to know if his decision was best, so he would have to know everything again in order to know what he did not want to know.......

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

......a God, must also transcend logical contradiction.

By that argument you can rationalize any activity you wish in the name of god.

0 Replies

echi wrote:

neologist wrote:
Everything I might add are related to his qualities, the qualities by which he created man in his image, namely: love, justice, wisdom, and power (free will). We can learn about these from a careful reading of the bible.

There is only one person in the universe who can truly have the title 'he who causes to become'.

If "God" created humans in his own image, then isn't our will really his will?
If so, then our will could never go against his will. And it would not be right to say that we exercise free will, independent of God, but that we share the will of God... that God's will is part of our nature.

Echi, while I can understand what you are saying here I need to put in my two cents. To be created in the image of something does not make that thing exactly alike to the thing it was created by. It is in the "image" of it, and or the likeness. Just like children are made in the image of their parents. They are similar but different. Look like them, but not exactly, and so forth. Just because a child is made in his parents image so to speak does not mean he's going to want all the things his parents want.

Or even that he's going to do all the things his parents want him to do. God's will can be part of our nature, just like a parents will can be part of the nature of their child, if it is nurtured properly. But it's not a guarantee just because the child is made in the image of the parents.

0 Replies

Chumly wrote:

Doktor S wrote:
Would you say it was within gods power to know the things he selectively decided not to know?
He would have to know everything first in order to know what he did not want to know, then upon knowing everything first, he could selectively decide not to know, but upon selectively deciding not to know, he would not be able to know if his decision was best, so he would have to know everything again in order to know what he did not want to know.......

Looks like two possible conclusions.
-A god that 'could have' known, but chose not to. Seems like this god would be at least partially responsible for the evils of the world.
-A god that could not have known. If he could not have known this, who's to say what else he might not know? This also leaves the door open for god to be wrong
Both gods are highly problematic

0 Replies

hephzibah wrote:

To be created in the image of something does not make that thing exactly alike to the thing it was created by. It is in the "image" of it, and or the likeness.

If you say so. Is that how the Bible puts it?
If our will is similar to "God's" then isn't it possible for him to make mistakes, just like us?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know