Free will cancels out the idea of god

[Votorx]

I personally think that this subject is self explanitory. It's based on the bible's interpretation and the ability to understand the bible. Lets sum it up:
1. According to the bible, god cannot interfere with our lives since it will be contradicting with our free will.
2. Everyone is given free will.
3. God is all knowing, therefore he must know our beginning and our end if this is so then there cannot be free will, this is contradicting the bible once again, it also negates god's word.

Do you fully accept the big bang theory?

I believe the big bang has some truth behind it but its missing something and that something is keeping it as a theory therefore it can never be fully accepted.

Also, do you believe in Darwin's theory of evolution.

Yes, we see hints of evolution in humans to this day. (ex. Wedged Feet, Increased Physics and adaption).

I am probably not very good at this. It is not my thing to convince anyone of anything they do not already know. Somewhere in your conscience, ~if you believe you have one; or, in your heart, ~if you accept the metaphorical concept of the heart; or down deep in your soul, ~if that makes any sense to you . . . you know certain things, and until something changes that . . . nothing I say will make much difference, at least not now.

Interpreting this and applying it to your idea of god caused me to think that you don't have solid foundation in your belief of god. According to this it seemed like your basing your beliefs on your emotions rather than being conciously convinced. I apologize if I'm wrong though

 

[Jenyar]

1. According to the bible, god cannot interfere with our lives since it will be contradicting with our free will.

That's not in the Bible.

2. Everyone is given free will.

Free will is not defined in the Bible either. In fact, it states we are not free, but enslaved by our sins and desires.

3. God is all knowing, therefore he must know our beginning and our end if this is so then there cannot be free will, this is contradicting the bible once again, it also negates god's word.

How? When you drive to work, you know both the beginning and the end of your journey, but you still have to drive it. So I repeat: God's knowledge is not limited to yours. You can also know your beginning and your end, and your choices will reflect this knowledge, they won't be determined by it!

 

[MarcAC]

...When you drive to work, you know both the beginning and the end of your journey, but you still have to drive it. So I repeat: God's knowledge is not limited to yours. You can also know your beginning and your end, and your choices will reflect this knowledge, they won't be determined by it!

Now who can argue with such sentiments? Well put Jenyar.

 

[MarcAC]

Well I'm thinking your knowledge might determine your choices but God's knowledge cannot. You know there's traffic on "East Street so you choose to drive on "North Street". You don't know all that God knows about the future, so his knowledge does not affect your choices. Even if He knows what* you will choose, you choose. I reeeeeeaally find it hard to see how someone can say knowledge is action be it divine or not.

 

[Katazia]

Jenyar,

When you drive to work, you know both the beginning and the end of your journey, but you still have to drive it.

Incorrect. You only know the intended destination. You might die in an accident en route. Knowledge about an event (e.g. arriving at work) is only acquired after the event has occurred. We do not have foreknowledge.

God's knowledge is not limited to yours.

Quite so, he would know beforehand that you would never reach your destination.

You can also know your beginning and your end, and your choices will reflect this knowledge, they won't be determined by it!

This cannot be true. Can you tell me what car you will be driving this day 20 years from now? It is unlikely you will know this, but an omniscient god would know. It would still be apparently your choice but is it? The event will have already been determined since God would know about it beforehand. In fact every event and perceived choice in your entire life would have been predetermined in the same way, long before you were even conceived.

It is therefore very simple – if a future event can be forecast perfectly then it will have been predetermined and you have no free will to do anything about it other than go through the motions.

There can be no free will if there is an omniscient god.

Kat

 

[Medicine*Woman]

*************
M*W: Free will is an allusion Christians use as an excuse for when they wanna sin.

 

[Halcyon]

Free will is impossible.
Whatever your genome didn't determine about the makeup of your personality, your learning filled in.
So every decision you make is based on the what you've learned, the state of synaptic connections in your brain, and your genetics.

If I say the word "orange," whatever association you draw up to the word depends on information you've previously acquired and how your brain was wired to process it.

If it could ever be possible to map and trace all the synaptic routes in your brain along with what information they processed, then it would simply be a matter of computation to determine how input is received, processed, stored, recalled, and influences action. Every thought has a physical, biological counterpart, so the laws of physics apply; for every action an opposite and equal reaction. You are never acting on a whim, you are reacting to input based on predetermined processes. Thoughts don't randomly pop into your head, they're there because there was a stimulus, conscious or unconscious.

 

[Jenyar]

It is therefore very simple ? if a future event can be forecast perfectly then it will have been predetermined and you have no free will to do anything about it other than go through the motions.

There can be no free will if there is an omniscient god.

There are at least two kinds of knowledge. One is based on expectations and the other on fulfilment. Each definition requires different variables to satisfy them, and each has its own limitations. When you apply these definitions directly to your definition of God you are unwittingly transmitting those inherent limitations, and they cause the contradiction you find so problematic. You are imagining a divine being with a human perspective on knowledge. Because what is "foreknowledge" to us is just "knowledge" (of the sort we can imagine) to God, and there's no contradiction. To Him, it really is just like knowing that route A leads to point B. Why else would He send Jesus to intervene?

Also, omniscience as such is not defined in the Bible, so whatever definition you give it might not reflect what we know of God. It's mostly a theoretical/philosophical perspective that has very little to do with our experience.

If things were already set in stone, Christ would have made no difference, and neither would our choices. The fact is they do, and there's no getting around it. Neither is there getting around the fact that God knows your heart, which is frankly all you have to worry about.

Free will (or whatever we perceive as "freedom") is no excuse to sin (thank you, M*W), and neither is what you think God knows.

 

[Katazia]

Jenyar,

There are at least two kinds of knowledge. One is based on expectations and the other on fulfilment.

That is just silly. An expectation of something is not knowledge of that something; the event might never occur.

Each definition requires different variables to satisfy them, and each has its own limitations. When you apply these definitions directly to your definition of God you are unwittingly transmitting those inherent limitations, and they cause the contradiction you find so problematic.

It would appear that it is you who have problems with your definitions. Try at least a dictionary first.

You are imagining a divine being with a human perspective on knowledge. Because what is "foreknowledge" to us is just "knowledge" (of the sort we can imagine) to God, and there's no contradiction. To Him, it really is just like knowing that route A leads to point B.

It is irrelevant what you call the phenomenon – knowledge, foreknowledge or whatever, we exist within a sequential temporal paradigm and if there is anything that possesses knowledge of events outside of that framework then we would be powerless to change those events – hence all our actions will be predetermined.

Why else would He send Jesus to intervene?

Baseless fantasies usually break down quickly, perhaps here you have discovered another one.

Also, omniscience as such is not defined in the Bible, so whatever definition you give it might not reflect what we know of God.

Are you trying to say that your imaginary friend doesn’t know the future and isn’t all-knowing then?

It's mostly a theoretical/philosophical perspective that has very little to do with our experience.

Experience? Doctrine you mean, don’t you?

If things were already set in stone, Christ would have made no difference, and neither would our choices.

There ya go – now you are beginning to see the nonsense of Christianity.

The fact is they do, and there's no getting around it.

Do they? How do you know we aren’t living in a matrix style universe, or that the philosophy of determinism isn’t in effect? You are the result of your DNA and all your actions and your propensity for certain actions are determined by those factors and cause and effect. You only think you have free will, but you can’t know it for sure.

Neither is there getting around the fact that God knows your heart, which is frankly all you have to worry about.

But that is just your baseless fantasy.

Kat

 

[Jenyar]

That is just silly. An expectation of something is not knowledge of that something; the event might never occur.

Then it's not knowledge, and it's excluded from the definition. The same applies to something that will happen, is happening, or has happened. At least from our limited perspective.

An example of this limitation is the Uncertainty Principle. We know the particle exists, but just because we know its momentum doesn't mean it doesn't have a position, and vice versa. That knowledge is simply not accessible from our perspective. It doesn't mean its not there.

It would appear that it is you who have problems with your definitions. Try at least a dictionary first.

You mean, a dictionary of information science? Got one, thanks.

It is irrelevant what you call the phenomenon ? knowledge, foreknowledge or whatever, we exist within a sequential temporal paradigm and if there is anything that possesses knowledge of events outside of that framework then we would be powerless to change those events ? hence all our actions will be predetermined.

As I said, it's a matter of perspective. When you look at a 2D line, you simply don't have to know what it's doing in 3D to figure out its equation - y=mx+c will adequately summarize your perspective and provide you with what you need to know. If God looks at our time-bound perspective, our limitations don't neccesarily apply for Him to have "knowledge". Another explanation that could help with looking at it from our perspective is that God can't know what there isn't to know, in other words something isn't fixed unless we fix it, or He does.

Baseless fantasies usually break down quickly, perhaps here you have discovered another one.

Are you trying to say that your imaginary friend doesn?t know the future and isn?t all-knowing then?

Perhaps you are too bound to your perspective to consider another one? God entered time and space to explain it "in our terms", so to speak. Jesus knew the future from God's perspective, but from our perspective we call that knowledge "faith". That doesn't mean all faith is knowledge, but that's why we can't know without God making it known, like in prophesies. And even prophecies become stagnant without faith in God. God knowing our future and our knowing it isn't the same thing - we need a context in which to understand it, but at the same time such a fixed context can also limit our ability to know the whole of it - which is where we need spiritual knowledge.

1 Corinthians 2:13
This is what we speak, not in words taught us by human wisdom but in words taught by the Spirit, expressing spiritual truths in spiritual words.​

Experience? Doctrine you mean, don?t you?

No, I mean experience. Or do you have any experience in omniscience that the rest of us don't?

Do they? How do you know we aren?t living in a matrix style universe, or that the philosophy of determinism isn?t in effect? You are the result of your DNA and all your actions and your propensity for certain actions are determined by those factors and cause and effect. You only think you have free will, but you can?t know it for sure.

But that is just your baseless fantasy.

If we really don't have free will then what was the problem in the first place? Why condemn Hitler if his DNA made him do it? Why condemn war crimes of US soldiers if their circumstances made them do it? If anything, we live in an inside-out matrix. After all, we are the gods of our reality. That's why we should be concerned with who the God of mankind is.

 

[Cyperium]

I can explain this in 2 simple scenerios.

1. We have free will: God being all knowing can see our future, how we die and how we live our life. Our existence is predestined and therefore cannot be changed, there is no free will, which leads to scenerio #2.

2. We do not have free will: God being perfect in everyway, granted us free will. God must have lied (which we know cannot be possible), or made a mistake (another impossibility).

Where does religion stand?

God cannot lie or make mistakes. For us something may seem impossible but for God anything is possible.

God knows our future, though we don't. You are searching in what's hidden for us.

Be your full potential. Be the perfect you. No one can blame you for that.

People don't see God because they have their eyes closed, and they have their eyes closed because they don't see God. We have to believe.

There is a free will for us, it's the free will that can actually change our destiny as imperfect - remember that God helped us out of the darkness that we were in, many things we do is better than darkness - most sins can be forgiven.

There is one thing though, it says in the bible that God let some people live allthough He knows they are doomed. I don't know the reason...maybe because they would still have a chance to see their faults and repent?

Also, things must be for a reason, and that means that there are reasons why God doesn't let us instantly become who we allready are predestined for. Cause if He did that maybe we wouldn't become what we should be...our walk through life has a meaning too.

Everything isn't what it looks like.

If we can't even understand our own thoughts then how can we understand God, the highest of high?

 

[P. M. Thorne]

HALCYON POSTED: Free will is impossible. Whatever your genome didn't determine about the makeup of your personality, your learning filled in. So every decision you make is based on the what you've learned, the state of synaptic connections in your brain, and your genetics.

Are you sure about that?

HALCYON POSTED: If I say the word "orange," whatever association you draw up to the word depends on information you've previously acquired and how your brain was wired to process it.

And, surely that is not the entire arguement.

HALCYON POSTED: If it could ever be possible to map and trace all the synaptic routes in your brain along with what information they processed, then it would simply be a matter of computation to determine how input is received, processed, stored, recalled, and influences action. Every thought has a physical, biological counterpart, so the laws of physics apply; for every action an opposite and equal reaction. You are never acting on a whim, you are reacting to input based on predetermined processes. Thoughts don't randomly pop into your head, they're there because there was a stimulus, conscious or unconscious.

So, can you share with us, exactly what tests/experiments that you mastered to arrive with such an absolute?

You know what I have noticed? I will say sometimes...when there was a major invention, there was more than one working on a similar thing. That is one thought; the other that comes to mind would have to do with historical occurances. A more recent example of this is the hippy generation. My point? There are ideas out there, and we think we individually originate them, but we do not.

I will say not more on this at this time, I just wanted to mention another probability that you seem to give no credance. Your posting made me wish that I could put this out, but not offend you. You seem so adamant, as though the search for truth had ended. Hmm. Maybe I misread your tone.

pmt

 

[Katazia]

Cyperium,

For us something may seem impossible but for God anything is possible.

When fantasy rules then anything is possible, right? Without a basis in reality you can claim anything.

People don't see God because they have their eyes closed, and they have their eyes closed because they don't see God. We have to believe.

It’s called a delusion or perhaps self-hypnosis – convincing yourself that something is there when it isn’t.

Also, things must be for a reason,

Why?

and that means that there are reasons why God doesn't let us instantly become who we allready are predestined for.

Invalid logic based on a false premise.

Everything isn't what it looks like.

So like, when I look in the mirror I’m really looking at someone else maybe?

If we can't even understand our own thoughts then how can we understand God, the highest of high?

Hey speak for yourself, I have no trouble understanding my thoughts.

Kat

 

[P. M. Thorne]

VOTORX RESPONDED: I personally think that this subject is self explanitory. It's based on the bible's interpretation and the ability to understand the bible. Lets sum it up: 1. According to the bible, god cannot interfere with our lives since it will be contradicting with our free will. ...2. Everyone is given free will....3. God is all knowing, therefore he must know our beginning and our end if this is so then there cannot be free will, this is contradicting the bible once again, it also negates god's word.

Oops, if you are going strictly by scripture, this is not entirely true.

VOTORX: I believe the big bang has some truth behind it but its missing something and that something is keeping it as a theory therefore it can never be fully accepted.

Okay, I think I know this. Just wondered what your take on it was.

VOTORX: Yes, we see hints of evolution in humans to this day. (ex. Wedged Feet, Increased Physics and adaption).

Thank you for your response on this matter.

VOTORX: Interpreting this and applying it to your idea of god caused me to think that you don't have solid foundation in your belief of god. According to this it seemed like your basing your beliefs on your emotions rather than being conciously convinced. I apologize if I'm wrong though.

Does it matter whether you are wrong. Am I to try to convince you that I am a significant intellectual who can battle you right and left on the existence of God? One thing I never try to do is to prove God, or to prove how smart I am. In all sincerity, there are just some things we are unable to prove. Muckraking will not shoo God away, nor do I have any powerful words for you. Emotions are often used to slight any authencity. Of course, I have emotional reasons, but I have just as many or more, cerebral reasons, and even more spiritual reasons. I understand that you mean what you say, and I respect that. I do not anticipate that you will be persuaded by anything I say. However, I do appreciate the way you express your non-appreciation, or whatever. So, I guess we just agree to think differently about Creation, and our place in it.

Chow. pmt

 

[Halcyon]

So, can you share with us, exactly what tests/experiments that you mastered to arrive with such an absolute?

You know that's not a reasonable question. As if the state of consciousness studies could be wound up with a few simple experiements. However, that is the current standing of research, I never said that any of that was my idea or in any way originated with me, I was only reporting on where one particular branch of research on the subject has come to. Some quick references for you: Joseph LeDoux, 2002, "Synaptic Self, how our brains become who we are"; Candace B. Pert, 1997, "Molecules Of Emotion"; Daniel Dennet, 1991, "Consciousness Explained"; and Rita Carter, 1998, "Mapping The Mind," would be a good introduction to some the ideas I expressed.

You know what I have noticed? I will say sometimes...when there was a major invention, there was more than one working on a similar thing. That is one thought; the other that comes to mind would have to do with historical occurances. A more recent example of this is the hippy generation. My point? There are ideas out there, and we think we individually originate them, but we do not.

I'll admit that I don't quite understand what you're trying to say there. Would you be willing to be more general for me?

I will say not more on this at this time, I just wanted to mention another probability that you seem to give no credance. Your posting made me wish that I could put this out, but not offend you. You seem so adamant, as though the search for truth had ended. Hmm. Maybe I misread your tone.

People often say that my posts seem very finalistic. I do feel strongly about the things I write, otherwise I usually wouldn't take the time to write them. I don't presume that the search for truth had ended, and if that is what is drawn from my post, I apologize for misleading. The search is by far nowhere near over, in truth we haven't got to the point where we'dve scratched the tip of the proverbial iceberg. However, we do have an understanding of certain processes of life, and what I mentioned happens to be one of them. Just as the history of scientific thought shows, though, certain truths that we have come to know are capable of being subjugated by future scientific progress. However, this right now is a truth, and though we all know that something is only true because it has yet to be proven wrong, there is still no mental phenomena that cannot be explained by this viewpoint.

 

[Votorx]

Ok so lets say the scipture does not say we have free will. Basically according to the evidence within the bible we infact do have whether or not it comes right out and says we do. Examples: 1. The Final Judgements 2. Adam and Eve. 3. Heaven and Hell 4. Faith 5. Belief. Basically we are being judged by god because we choose to follow him and the scriptures. What fullfillment can there be if we have no choice in going to heaven or hell? Where are we going to be if we cannot decide our own actions and paths in life? Where is the faith and belief if god only programed us to begin with? There cannot be a heaven and hell it would just be a final destination for computations gone wrong. If we have no choice and god truley loves us then why fling those who were following god's original plan into hell? There must be free will but then there cannot, a biblical paradox.

 

[Jenyar]

Ok so lets say the scipture does not say we have free will. Basically according to the evidence within the bible we infact do have whether or not it comes right out and says we do. Examples: 1. The Final Judgements 2. Adam and Eve. 3. Heaven and Hell 4. Faith 5. Belief. Basically we are being judged by god because we choose to follow him and the scriptures. What fullfillment can there be if we have no choice in going to heaven or hell? Where are we going to be if we cannot decide our own actions and paths in life? Where is the faith and belief if god only programed us to begin with? There cannot be a heaven and hell it would just be a final destination for computations gone wrong. If we have no choice and god truley loves us then why fling those who were following god's original plan into hell? There must be free will but then there cannot, a biblical paradox.

But a path must lead somewhere, or it isn't a decision at all. A choice that has no conseqences, no effect, isn't really a choice anymore. God is basically asking you to choose between life and death. At the moment you think you don't have a choice at all - so tell me, which grants more freedom?

Having measures doesn't mean the choices are more limited, it means they can be made with better judgment.

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Halcyon posted: You know that's not a reasonable question. As if the state of consciousness studies could be wound up with a few simple experiements. However, that is the current standing of research, I never said that any of that was my idea or in any way originated with me, I was only reporting on where one particular branch of research on the subject has come to. Some quick references for you: Joseph LeDoux, 2002, "Synaptic Self, how our brains become who we are"; Candace B. Pert, 1997, "Molecules Of Emotion"; Daniel Dennet, 1991, "Consciousness Explained"; and Rita Carter, 1998, "Mapping The Mind," would be a good introduction to some the ideas I expressed.

ANSWER: I get what you are saying; however, it did not come across -to me- like ideas being expressed, but more like conclusions that had been drawn beforehand. –Thank you for the references. I, like you, have my own favorite authors; nonetheless, I do keep records of the more meaningful exchanges, I just may decide to check one of those out. At least these give me an idea where you get your ideas.

In response to my writing: [COLOR=Navy[I]]"There are ideas out there, and we think we individually originate them, but we do not."[/I][/COLOR] ~~ in responding to your comment: "Thoughts don't randomly pop into your head, they're there because there was a stimulus, conscious or unconscious," YOU WROTE: YOU WROTE: "I'll admit that I don't quite understand what you're trying to say there. Would you be willing to be more general for me?"

Sure. Now, please do not get in a twist, but it seems that ideas come in clusters, so to speak. Whether these are innate qualities that come by way of births, at one time or another, or . . . something, say electrical, from an atmosphere that attracts brain waives, which, consequently, tuned minds pick up . . . I will not theorize. I have been told that this is not a new consideration. So! What is new in the true sense of the word? I do not preach any such theory; yet, I should think there are basis for wondering how much truth there is to it. This could be free will at its best, (or a crock!)

YOU WROTE: People often say that my posts seem very finalistic. I do feel strongly about the things I write, otherwise I usually wouldn't take the time to write them. I don't presume that the search for truth had ended, and if that is what is drawn from my post, I apologize for misleading. The search is by far nowhere near over, in truth we haven't got to the point where we'dve scratched the tip of the proverbial iceberg.

Then I probably misread your tone. I respect one who feels strongly about what he says, and I appreciate your sincerity. I ask a lot of questions, and even more in person. (See how lucky you are?) It is just that I like to know a bit about where someone is; otherwise, how can I meet him there in a worthy dialogue.

YOU also WROTE THIS: However, we do have an understanding of certain processes of life, and what I mentioned happens to be one of them. Just as the history of scientific thought shows, though, certain truths that we have come to know are capable of being subjugated by future scientific progress.

…and, I agree.

BUT THEN YOU WROTE THIS: However, this right now is a truth, and though we all know that something is only true because it has yet to be proven wrong, there is still no mental phenomena that cannot be explained by this viewpoint.

May I prevail upon you as to where you got such an idea. Seriously! Sometimes people assume they have explained something by using a point of view that appeals to them. I must say this one does not appeal to me. “Something is true only because it has yet to be proven untrue,” is nonsense, don’t you think? You seem like a good guy, but that appears to be a very lazy way to approach life. [ At least you are not so choosey about what must be proven.]

I do accept that truth begets truth; or that there can be partial truth, with more truth in progress, by way of advanced discoveries and so forth, but never that truth is: ---anything that has not been disproved. Naw. I am thinking that maybe that was not exactly how you meant to leave it. [?]

pmt

 

[P. M. Thorne]

Votorx, I may have someone sidways, but I do not take everything in the bible literally, nor do I believe in the most generally accepted theories of heaven and hell. So, my brother, (or sister), you have me in a corner of sorts, because I truly do not wish to confuse the issue for anyone.

Before I further address your comments specifically, let me say this: I believe that Jesus came to show us the way. The way where? To live this life, and to preparedness for a better one, ~yet to come. Other great teachers seem much in agreement, even Spinoza, (that god-awful atheist...not!) of HAVING A PURPOSE TO ONE'S LIFE, important. NOT ALLOWING ANYTHING TO TEAR YOU AWAY FROM YOUR PURPOSE, also important. This amounts to keeping acquisitions to only what is necessary to make us comfortable enough, and healthy enough to pursue our purpose. This would apply to food and drink, to exercise and rest, to socializing and romance, and so on. Moderation seems to be the key word to being focused and on track.

Now, we do have choices for those things I mentioned above. We are free to choose whether to buy, to sell, to hoard. We are free to choose whether to pursue a purpose, or to trivalize our life away. Further, I am convinced that we are free to choose what we take with us, and to a great degree what we leave behind. What we do not choose, (at least this has not been proven to my satisfaction), is when, where and under what circumstances we come into this world. This in itself can hinder free will to some degree, and is far too complicated to spell out here.
................................................................
YOU WROTE: ".....within the bible..........(examples) 1. The Final Judgements 2. Adam and Eve. 3. Heaven and Hell......... [ I pass on Adam and Eve; because, it seems symbolic to me, The others are too complicated to cover it all, nor do I think I should on this thread, okay? ]

CON'T: /4. Faith [ Think about that one. I find the thought rather intriguing. Just how do we choose to have faith? Hmm, probably the same way we choose to have good health, to be fair. Does that make sense? ]

/5. Belief. You know, it seems to me that we do not choose to believe, but rather choose not to believe. I do not recall ever choosing to believe. I suppose I did in some way, but I have no hostility about believing, and no fear of my belief leaving me. What I do choose is study, meditation and an ongoing effort to be a better person than I was the day before. (Have a long ways to go on that one.) Perhaps this deliberate pursuit of knowledge and wisdom and love helps, but there were times when things were topsy turvy and my belief did not go anywhere. I cannot say.

STILL YOUR WORDS: Basically we are being judged by god because we choose to follow him and the scriptures.

Are we? What scriptures? Are you speaking of believers or non-believers? Also, being a bit picky here, I thing "choosing to follow Him" leave it all a bit loose, even though it is really an okay phrase. How about this. "Whether we follow him." Do you see what I am getting at? All these words can confuse the issue. I never chose to love my kids, not in any true sense. We, to me, are more inclined to choose what we think, much like we choose what we eat. If we eat properly, we are far more likely to be healthy. If we choose the thoughts we allow to take up residence, and process them properly, we are far likely to be followers of Christ, because is no better way. My words.

YOUR WORDS: What fullfillment can there be if we have no choice in going to heaven or hell? Where are we going to be if we cannot decide our own actions and paths in life? Where is the faith and belief if god only programed us to begin with? There cannot be a heaven and hell it would just be a final destination for computations gone wrong. If we have no choice and god truley loves us then why fling those who were following god's original plan into hell? There must be free will but then there cannot, a biblical paradox.

Good questions. There are confusing scripures, such as "Many are called, but few are chosen." And the degree one: "some thirty fold, some sixty, some 100." "(we sin but) sin cannot have dominion over us (speaking of believers)"

The four books, called the gospels,l can drive you nuts if you have no knowledge of Greek, and no understanding of those times. In addition, it is imperative, I think, to at least have some knowledge of how the gospels came together, and so forth. The book of Acts helps a lot, even as it is.

Now, that I have said all that, I would recommend that you ask God about this free will thing. I say, it is limited. Obviously, we have some freedom of will, and just as obviously, it has its limits. The limits are different with different things, but limits, nonetheless.

It seems that I have not truly answered your questions. May I suggest that you search these things out for yourself, regardless of who attempts to answer your questions. I would live no differently than I am. My motivation is a tremendous amount of love that I feel for creation, (which means us and all the rest), for God and for truth. We do not need to be worrying about will power, we will have power if we but ask!

pmt.

 

[Halcyon]

Sure. Now, please do not get in a twist, but it seems that ideas come in clusters, so to speak. Whether these are innate qualities that come by way of births, at one time or another, or . . . something, say electrical, from an atmosphere that attracts brain waives, which, consequently, tuned minds pick up . . . I will not theorize. I have been told that this is not a new consideration. So! What is new in the true sense of the word? I do not preach any such theory; yet, I should think there are basis for wondering how much truth there is to it. This could be free will at its best, (or a crock!)

I think I'm starting to understand what you say, but for some reason I't's still cloudy. Unfortunately I find that having a simple idea and an easy way of expressing it doesn't help in conveying the idea to me unless it can be explained in terms of my own ideology...People get frustrated rather easy with me for it. I'm very interested in addressing that particular idea. A question first; when you said "clusters," did you mean to convey the meaning that ideas often come to several distinct and unrelated people at the same time?

BUT THEN YOU WROTE THIS: However, this right now is a truth, and though we all know that something is only true because it has yet to be proven wrong, there is still no mental phenomena that cannot be explained by this viewpoint.

When I said "right now this is a truth," I meant it in the sense that it is comparable to most everything else in the current body of scientific knowledge that is used to explain the universe around us. It is an agreed upon method(not universally agreed upon, because nothing can be said to be so) that has managed to stand up to any argument I've been able to construct against it, as well as those I've seen others make. Not being completely acquainted with the ins and outs of all the parts that make up the whole of the idea(having only been able to seek out the information and teach myself) I will say that I am personally unfit to address every argument one may present against the idea, but I welcome them all because they offer me the chance to learn.

May I prevail upon you as to where you got such an idea.

I do not believe in Objective Reality. I believe that the current state of science supports this. Truths being as subjective as everything else, like everything else, has potential to be observed in as many different states as there are consciousness' to observe them. Every individual has their own standards by which to determine something as being true or untrue, and so every truth an individual holds has the potential to be proven untrue should certain standards be met. If every truth has the potential to be untrue, then the statement "something is only true because it has yet to be proven untrue," hardly appears to be nonsense.

I do accept that truth begets truth; or that there can be partial truth, with more truth in progress, by way of advanced discoveries and so forth, but never that truth is: ---anything that has not been disproved. Naw. I am thinking that maybe that was not exactly how you meant to leave it..

I don't see how the view you expressed and the one I expressed would be incompatible.