Free Will?
- Thread starter yuri_sakazaki
- Start date
It aaaall depends on what determines what.everneo said:
colegrey said:
MarcAC said:
I am not sure whether or not you are completely ignorant of the fact that we percieve time. Therefore the statement 'God did does and will do' is utterly meaningless if he is 'outside' of time.
But I'm sure you can explain how this is to be.
The suggestion remains.
Last edited:
If god is "outside" of time, then why did it take him 6 days to create the heavens and earth? Hmmmmmm???
Aha! So water admits that some prophecies can be changed with our free will...like his example of avoiding elevators if someone told you that you would die in one on a certain day and time. But then if you did that, then the original prophecy SHOULDN'T have been made because that person (who told you about your impending doom) would ALSO have seen that you took steps to avoid any elevators in the future.
How about this? If there is a "future" and "present" and "past", and our "present" hasn't caught up to the "future" yet, then can we not say that our "past" hasn't caught up to our "present" yet?
It's all relative, isn't it?
Aha! So water admits that some prophecies can be changed with our free will...like his example of avoiding elevators if someone told you that you would die in one on a certain day and time. But then if you did that, then the original prophecy SHOULDN'T have been made because that person (who told you about your impending doom) would ALSO have seen that you took steps to avoid any elevators in the future.
How about this? If there is a "future" and "present" and "past", and our "present" hasn't caught up to the "future" yet, then can we not say that our "past" hasn't caught up to our "present" yet?
It's all relative, isn't it?
God creates what we call time. But no one knows for sure what this creation of time entails. God could create a specific reality, calling it the reality at certain time, and then,for his creatures that made free will decisons, he makes another reality, an instance after the previous reality, based upon their decisions and the reality before. Nothing here either contradicts God knowing everything or free will. God creates knowledge and, while his creatures do make free will decisions, God knows what they've choosen at the same instance they've chosen. Although God creates the realities outside of time, his creatures make their free willed decisions within time.
So how do you call yourself "The Voice of Truth"? You should know it all man!§outh§tar said:
You see? The problem is perspective.
We are not God; we are in time so we perceive everything including God's actions relative to time. All we can state is that outside of time God acts. You need to drop your seeming reductionist views; they don't work bro - let the refreshing posts of the *§parkling* water baptise you.
The statement would be meaningless if we did not perceive time but since we do, it has meaning to us.
I only lay out ideas - you are free to do what you want with them. I am not "The Voice of Truth". But then if you are sure I can explain it then it must be true?
I thought it was supposed to be truth.
okinrus: God creates what we call time. But no one knows for sure what this creation of time entails. God could create a specific reality, calling it the reality at certain time, and then,for his creatures that made free will decisons, he makes another reality, an instance after the previous reality, based upon their decisions and the reality before. Nothing here either contradicts God knowing everything or free will. God creates knowledge and, while his creatures do make free will decisions, God knows what they've choosen at the same instance they've chosen. Although God creates the realities outside of time, his creatures make their free willed decisions within time.
*************
M*W: I don't believe a deity created "time." Assuming that God created the universe, including the sun, moon, planets, stars, etc., it is the rising and setting of the sun that motivated early humans to create the measurement of time.
*************
M*W: I don't believe a deity created "time." Assuming that God created the universe, including the sun, moon, planets, stars, etc., it is the rising and setting of the sun that motivated early humans to create the measurement of time.
What we call time is the progression of realities. God creates and manages each reality, even though were're not sure of how direct his influence is. In any case, God is outside the progression of realities. He created reality. But he's able to create knowledge within in time. He created us within time. On the first day, for instance, Adam didn't exist. The tree of knowledge didn't either. God is able to create knowledge within time, but wether he does or not, I'm not sure of. I don't see any reason for him not to, though.
Last edited:
Laser Eyes
Registered Senior Member
yuri_sakazaki said:
Yuri, I haven't read all the posts in this thread because frankly I haven't got time to do so but here is the answer to your question.
Many scriptures say that God knows all things. But there are other scriptures which indicate that he does not know (on an individual level) how we will exercise our free will. The only conclusion we can come to is that God chooses not to know certain things, not because he can't, but because he wants us to feel the full power of free will. If God had foreseen our future then we would not feel in control of our destiny. If our future was already written then our life would seem pointless. God wants us to know and feel that we have the power to decide our own futures and have real free will, not some sham version. Because God chooses not to know in advance what specific choices we will make there can never be any suggestion that our futures are predestined. Nobody, including God, knows what we will do.
Omniscience is just a word in the dictionary that we have given a certain meaning. Who are we to say what the nature of an omniscient God should be? The truth is that God can choose not to know something if he wishes. Why should he not have this ability? Why should omniscience be an uncontrollable quality? It is more omniscient to know precisely what you want to know at the time you want to know it than to know everything all the time whether you want to or not.
God could indeed know in advance every choice you will ever make if he wanted to know that. But God deliberately chooses not to see what choices we will make as individuals so that you will feel your life is not predetermined.
And here is the Biblical proof for what I say:
"Now it came to pass after these things that God tested Abraham .... Then he said, 'Take now your son, your only son Isaac, whom you love and go to the land of Moriah, and offer him there as a burnt offering on one of the mountains of which I shall tell you.' .... Then they came to the place of which God had told him. And Abraham built an altar there and placed the wood in order; and he bound Isaac his son and laid him on the altar, upon the wood. And Abraham stretched out his hand and took the knife to slay his son. But the Angel of the Lord called to him from heaven and said, 'Abraham, Abraham!' So he said, 'Here I am.' And He said, 'Do not lay your hand on the lad, or do anything to him; for now I know that you fear God, since you have not withheld your son, your only son, from Me.'" - Genesis 22:1-12 (my emphasis) The statement "for now I know" is not consistent with God knowing in advance whether Abraham would obey him. Also if God had known what Abraham would do it would not have been a real and honest test.
"Now the Lord had told Samuel in his ear the day before Saul came, saying, 'Tomorrow about this time I will send you a man from the land of Benjamin, and you shall anoint him commander over My people Israel .... So when Samuel saw Saul, the Lord said to him, 'There he is, the man of whom I spoke to you. This one shall reign over My peoople.'" - 1 Samuel 9:15-17 "Now the word of the Lord came to Samuel, saying, 'I greatly regret that I have set up Saul as king, for he has turned back from following Me, and has not performed My commandments.' .... And the Lord regretted that He had made Saul king over Israel." - 1 Samuel 15:10-11,35 God's "regret" shows he was disappointed at the way Saul turned out. If God had foreknown what Saul would do it would be a nonsense to speak of feeling regret.
"Now the word of the Lord came to Jonah the son of Amittai, saying, 'Arise, go to Nineveh, that great city, and cry out against it; for their wickedness has come up before Me.' .... And Jonah began to enter the city on the first day's walk. Then he cried out and said, 'Yet forty days and Nineveh shall be overthrown!' .... So the people of Nineveh believed God, proclaimed a fast and put on sackcloth, from the greatest to the least of them. Then word came to the king of Nineveh; and he arose from his throne and laid aside his robe, covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes. And he caused it to be proclaimed and published throughout Nineveh by the decree of the king and his nobles, saying, .... let every one turn from his evil way and from the violence that is in his hands. .... Then God saw their works, that they turned from their evil way; and God relented from the disaster that He had said He would bring upon them, and He did not do it." - Jonah 1:1-2; 3:4-10 If God had foreknown that he would not destroy the people of Nineveh then it was a pointless exercise to send Jonah to them with a warning. It is just nonsensical to think that God would plan the destruction of Nineveh and send a messenger to warn them that they were to be destroyed if he had known all along that he would not destroy them.
"'I call heaven and earth as witnesses today against you, that I have set before you life and death, blessing and cursing; therefore choose life, that both you and your descendants may live.'" - Deuteronomy 30:19 Far from indicating that our futures are known in advance the Bible emphasises the existence of two possible futures, life or death. Which one results is up to each of us.
"The Lord is not slack concerning his promise, as some count slackness, but is longsuffering toward us, not willing that any should perish but that all should come to repentance." - 2 Peter 3:9 The statement that God desires all to repent is hardly consistent with foreknowledge of who will repent and who won't.
"now where back to square one with mario.
i'm not even going to try."...ellion
Well according to my crystal ball you will.
God can apparently see his own future as well. And not only can he exist in his own timeless reality he also can exist in our future reality at the same time (so to speak). For example, did god, being outside time and human reality, see himself helping moses part the dead sea before it happened yet? Could god, upon seeing the future of himself helping moses beat the bad guys, think to himself and say..."Hmmm, I'll have to think about that"? Can god change his mind about what he will supposedly do in our future? Or are his thoughts and actions just as predetermined as ours...
i'm not even going to try."...ellion
Well according to my crystal ball you will.
God can apparently see his own future as well. And not only can he exist in his own timeless reality he also can exist in our future reality at the same time (so to speak). For example, did god, being outside time and human reality, see himself helping moses part the dead sea before it happened yet? Could god, upon seeing the future of himself helping moses beat the bad guys, think to himself and say..."Hmmm, I'll have to think about that"? Can god change his mind about what he will supposedly do in our future? Or are his thoughts and actions just as predetermined as ours...
your right i will
outside of the space-time, unbound and independent of, but in and engaged with space-time.
outside of all physcal laws that we percieve, unbound and independent of but in and engaged with all the physical laws that we percieve.
can you see the contradiction in these 2 statements? to exist outside of time is to exist beyond time, beyond the concept of past and future.mario said:
outside of the space-time, unbound and independent of, but in and engaged with space-time.
outside of all physcal laws that we percieve, unbound and independent of but in and engaged with all the physical laws that we percieve.
the god we are dealing with here the omni-god or 'the one god' 'the absolute' being, being all would have seen moses whole life.
why would he need to change his mind? would he have made an error of judgment? would an omni god think or act any thing like we do?
ellion said:
I think this just skirts the issue.
See below:
Thus then, we should accept that emotions are just as part of us as our mind is.
I know the picture may seem "painted black and white, overlooking a palette of colours". But if we are to establish any kind of laws and justice, we have no choice but to separate strictly and with exactness.
That something is accounted as an act of free will can also be declared by extension, or by inference.
I am responsible for the mess my cat makes in the neighbour's flower garden. I did not go and dig out flowers and chew off blossoms, my cat did. But it has been an act of my free will to accept the responsibility for the acts of my cat. Thus, by extension, what my cat does is *accounted* the same as my free will.
This may seem absurd, but it is the only just way to deal with some phenomena.
A portion of our actions are such that we seem to have no control over them, or they are not the result of our decisions to act so. Like when "influenced by emotions".
But the point is that we are responsible for them just the same!
So we either have to abdicate our responsibility, or accept it in full.
This just goes to show how free will -- exactly: OUR UNDERSTANDING OF free will -- is essentially a matter of a certain legal contract that exists within a certain social discourse -- and that free will is not something we could derive from the principles by which a single human mind works when left to itself.
* * *
§outh§tar said:
We are in time, and *to us*, it is "God did, does, and will do".
* * *
mario said:
Because the heavens (here "heavens" means 'sky') and the earth exist in time.
No, I did not say that! I said that *knowing* a prophecy can change our course of actions -- change them in comparison to what we have planned. But if the prophecy is a true prophecy, then no matter what we do, what has been prophesized, will happen.
I really love it when I am considered to be male.
If the prohecy is a true prophecy -- meaning that it comes from an omnimax entity and not from the soothsayer down the road --, then knowing it won't change the outcomes of the future.
For your own sake, never say this in my presence.
* * *
MarcAC said:
Why, Marc, I think you are overdoing this.
* * *
Laser Eyes said:
No, this just adds another layer of explanation to fix a seeming inconsistency, and creates new troubles that are extraneous to the original issue.
This is against the axiom that God is omnimax.
If we are to discuss anything about Christianity, we have to keep to the axioms given by the Christian theology.
If we are not to say what the nature of an omniscient God should be, then we also can't say what the truth about this God's omniscience is.
(You've just made the same fallacy as this: "I've never seen any pythons in my whole life. The python I saw yesterday was green.")
What is more or less omniscient ...
You're skirting the issue. You are willing to modify omniscience into "more omniscient" (and something else is then "less omniscient" -- those are logical nonsense), make God less of God, so that your equation works out.
I see how this makes sense to you, but you are basing it on a non sequitur: You are starting from the supposition that if God knows things about us, this automatically affects the way we think about ourselves. (In effect, you're saying we're puppets with no free will.) So, to keep our free will, you infer that God must strip Himself of His omniscience, modify it -- for if God were omnimax, we'd have no free will. According to you.
Nonsense. If God wants to be undererstood by people, He has to speak to them in a manner that they understand Him. Meaning that God assumes a time perspective for His actions in a manner that His words and actions make sense to people.
From whose perspective?
Who do you think the "test" was actually meant for?
If God is omnimax, then He would have to be whimsical if He would test people "just for the fun of it".
But it is said that God is just.
The "test" was meant for Abraham, to show Abraham that he has the right faith, and, what is more, that God is with him.
I know my cat will surely tip over the vase, this is just what she does when she plays with the flowers. Each time, I regret she does it.
The only way to prevent this, would be to take the vase -- and everything else she could tip over, scratch to pieces etc. -- take all this away. All the sofas, vases, courtains, books, flowers, ... can you imagine what a dreary place our house would be then? Surely, little harm could be done then, but living in such a house would be a misery. So I decide to keep the things, am sorry when something gets broken -- but I can *forgive* the damage, because a life in a full and interesting house with a vibrant cat is incomparably more enjoyable than life in a sterile house where no damage can be done -- and no fun be had either.
I can imagine God thinks in about the same way.
I hope you do realize that this amounts ot the argument "Either God is not omnimax and doesn't know the future (and therefore doesn't qualify to be a true god), or it would have been better that God had never created existence in the first place."
I think God was concerned, so He let people know about his concern. People, tending to be full of themselves, wouldn't accept a mere "I, your creator, am worried about you, I don't like what you're doing", so He had to speak with a threat.
No. What you are saying is against the axioms of omnimax. You are speaking about some other god, not that of the Bible.
If God weren't loving, you'd have a point.
If God were a mere philosophical construct, cold and immovable, mechanical, a whimsical puppetmaster, then you'd have a point.
Once more, your argument comes down to "Either God is not omnimax and doesn't know the future (and therefore doesn't qualify to be a true god), or it would have been better that God had never created existence in the first place."
* * *
mario said:
God is not a human.
NIV
Romans 7
Maybe our souls/spirits experience the present (with regards to colegrey and God making us experience actions in present)? Maybe our souls/spirits are the "ones" who really exercise free will through time while our bodies are "fixed" in it? Maybe God fixes it so that we may always end up doing the right? Maybe through our free will we sometimes end up doing wrong? It would make sense in a sense. Sometimes we forget the concept of The Serpent and the role it plays. God's Will, Satan's will, our will? Spiritual warfare.
For now I've had enough of sciforums; likewise I'm sure.
Romans 7
14. We know that the law is spiritual; but I am unspiritual, sold as a slave to sin. 15. I do not understand what I do. For what I want to do I do not do, but what I hate I do. 16. And if I do what I do not want to do, I agree that the law is good. 17. As it is, it is no longer I myself who do it, but it is sin living in me. 18. I know that nothing good lives in me, that is, in my sinful nature. For I have the desire to do what is good, but I cannot carry it out. 19. For what I do is not the good I want to do; no, the evil I do not want to do–this I keep on doing. 20. Now if I do what I do not want to do, it is no longer I who do it, but it is sin living in me that does it.
21. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23. but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25. Thanks be to God–through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
I'm not sure if this was referenced before but it might be pertinent to the discussion regarding Peter.21. So I find this law at work: When I want to do good, evil is right there with me. 22. For in my inner being I delight in God's law; 23. but I see another law at work in the members of my body, waging war against the law of my mind and making me a prisoner of the law of sin at work within my members. 24. What a wretched man I am! Who will rescue me from this body of death? 25. Thanks be to God–through Jesus Christ our Lord!
So then, I myself in my mind am a slave to God's law, but in the sinful nature a slave to the law of sin.
Maybe our souls/spirits experience the present (with regards to colegrey and God making us experience actions in present)? Maybe our souls/spirits are the "ones" who really exercise free will through time while our bodies are "fixed" in it? Maybe God fixes it so that we may always end up doing the right? Maybe through our free will we sometimes end up doing wrong? It would make sense in a sense. Sometimes we forget the concept of The Serpent and the role it plays. God's Will, Satan's will, our will? Spiritual warfare.
For now I've had enough of sciforums; likewise I'm sure.
remind me what issue you were addressing.water said:
yes, i definitely think emotions are as much a part of me as my mind. you seem to be suggesting that your emotions arent or that you are not willing to accept them. correct me if necessary.water said:
seperating things to the extent that they are not part of a whole (or parts of the whole are overlooked) is not the best basis for understanding or establishing a thing.
with respect to the rest of your post i need to restate what i have said before free will is only free will when it is without resritction and it is my will. as i have said before we do not have free will in all situations but we do have free will in some situations and we have the potential to develop our will and become less restricted.
with regard to peter i dont think his actions were his unrestricted will.
Water
From seeing from your posts above replying negatively to all the other posters, i see one huge confusion - what the hell you are trying to say? Can you clearly state your arguments in a summary? For the time being please consider the following questions :
1. Can you tell the difference between freewill and fantasy?
2. Do yo consider your laziness (or anyother shortcomings/weakness) as part of your free will?
3. Do you think not tying/keeping your cat within your house is your freewill or your irresponsibility?
4. Do you agree that freewill is restricted by various factors, viz.,
- personal shortcomings (that you are/were able to correct & responsible primarily)
- physical shortcomings (that you have no control over generally)
From seeing from your posts above replying negatively to all the other posters, i see one huge confusion - what the hell you are trying to say? Can you clearly state your arguments in a summary? For the time being please consider the following questions :
1. Can you tell the difference between freewill and fantasy?
2. Do yo consider your laziness (or anyother shortcomings/weakness) as part of your free will?
3. Do you think not tying/keeping your cat within your house is your freewill or your irresponsibility?
4. Do you agree that freewill is restricted by various factors, viz.,
- personal shortcomings (that you are/were able to correct & responsible primarily)
- physical shortcomings (that you have no control over generally)