Predestination and Free Will

[Saturnine Pariah]

When you love someone, or are loved, do you do logical gymnastics or do you believe?

There is nothing illogical about faith.

A child is asked to close their eyes and hold their hand out, the gift has never been seen or heard of, the child doesn't want to guess, because it just wants the surprise, and smiles in faith.

The logical child cannot see the gift and therefor the gift cannot exist. The parent is just standing there with their hands behind their back. The logical child does not close its eyes or put the hands out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rwioe1SGkQ
If god is the parent of all humans then i rather be an orphan.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Rwioe1SGkQ
If god is the parent of all humans then i rather be an orphan.

Thanks for referring that short movie. I agree with you wholeheartedly, if that is the case.

That movie is a good description of the perverse 'gospel' promoted by the anti Christ. These teachings are not found in the Bible, but are proliferated in religions that hold the Bible as an authority for their self appointed positions.

It was religion that ordered the death of Christ and politics that enabled it.

All the doctrines presented are false.

If you understood the Bible you would realise that the churches are battlements and maizes to shut the truth out. Who would do such a thing except the fallen angel?

It is up to you to find out what the Bible actually teaches, rather than depending on heresay. you might be interested to know that the churches are called "a cage full of unclean birds" and the great mother church is called the "mother of harlots". Revelation 17.

Another thing about that movie, it uses a mistranslation of the Bible to prove its case. Corrupt and false Bibles have been increasing in circulation since the early 1800's, and are now recommended by so called Christendom. Read the KJV and ask God to keep you aware and intelligent.

 

[Sarkus]

When you love someone, or are loved, do you do logical gymnastics or do you believe?

Believe what? Everything they say? Everything they do?

There is nothing illogical about faith.

There is when there is no evidence to support the position... i.e. when that faith is blind. Otherwise it is merely a subconscious assessment of probability based on previous experience.

A child is asked to close their eyes and hold their hand out, the gift has never been seen or heard of, the child doesn't want to guess, because it just wants the surprise, and smiles in faith.

The logical child cannot see the gift and therefor the gift cannot exist. The parent is just standing there with their hands behind their back. The logical child does not close its eyes or put the hands out.

Drivel.
You are committing a rather poor false dilemma and analogy.
The "logical" child (if indeed one could classify one as such) would see that there would be no harm in putting their hands out, having built up a bank of experience with their parent so that the request would be complied with.
Children are far more logical than you give them credit for. They don't just trust anyone... they trust those with whom they have experience.

Compare your example with a complete stranger asking the child to get into his car because there are some sweets there.
Your "child of faith" would just jump in the car?

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

Thanks for referring that short movie. I agree with you wholeheartedly, if that is the case.

That movie is a good description of the perverse 'gospel' promoted by the anti Christ. These teachings are not found in the Bible, but are proliferated in religions that hold the Bible as an authority for their self appointed positions.

It was religion that ordered the death of Christ and politics that enabled it.

All the doctrines presented are false.

If you understood the Bible you would realise that the churches are battlements and maizes to shut the truth out. Who would do such a thing except the fallen angel?

It is up to you to find out what the Bible actually teaches, rather than depending on heresay. you might be interested to know that the churches are called "a cage full of unclean birds" and the great mother church is called the "mother of harlots". Revelation 17.

Another thing about that movie, it uses a mistranslation of the Bible to prove its case. Corrupt and false Bibles have been increasing in circulation since the early 1800's, and are now recommended by so called Christendom. Read the KJV and ask God to keep you aware and intelligent.

Let me address this in an ordered form
1. If the there are so many heretical versions of the bible and as you claim are the work of the anti-god Lucifer then why wouldn’t an omnipotent god who loves us so much even allow for an entity to exist to begin with .
2. A religion integrated with politics put a man to death? Haven’t seen that happen before..
3. Those perversions of gospels as you called them are very canonical (according to Christendom) which upon closer inspection and analysis are at best allegorical.
4. Theologians cannot even in this day and age still have not figured out who or whom wrote the entire bible…do we give that credit to Satan too? Or to bad writing skills of bronze age men whom were inspired by “gods” divine will
5. So god requires humans… his creations to have to understand his nature of Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnibenevolence, Statelessness, and Timelessness. We as minuscule organisms have to comprehend all of this with our limited brain power that without the use of technology cannot and still can barely contemplate how small or big our universe is? While the god whose ass we have to kiss has knowledge of everything past, present or future? We have to understand all of this or we will suffer for being human? He blames us for his mistakes? He allows for an opposite negative version of himself that actually rebels against him to exist? A finite transgression automatically lands you into a scenario of infinite punishment if you don’t do enough ass kissing to god?....Makes perfect sense.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Let me address this in an ordered form
1. If the there are so many heretical versions of the bible and as you claim are the work of the anti-god Lucifer then why wouldn’t an omnipotent god who loves us so much even allow for an entity to exist to begin with .
2. A religion integrated with politics put a man to death? Haven’t seen that happen before..
3. Those perversions of gospels as you called them are very canonical (according to Christendom) which upon closer inspection and analysis are at best allegorical.
4. Theologians cannot even in this day and age still have not figured out who or whom wrote the entire bible…do we give that credit to Satan too? Or to bad writing skills of bronze age men whom were inspired by “gods” divine will
5. So god requires humans… his creations to have to understand his nature of Omnipotence, Omniscience, Omnibenevolence, Statelessness, and Timelessness. We as minuscule organisms have to comprehend all of this with our limited brain power that without the use of technology cannot and still can barely contemplate how small or big our universe is? While the god whose ass we have to kiss has knowledge of everything past, present or future? We have to understand all of this or we will suffer for being human? He blames us for his mistakes? He allows for an opposite negative version of himself that actually rebels against him to exist? A finite transgression automatically lands you into a scenario of infinite punishment if you don’t do enough ass kissing to god?....Makes perfect sense.

If you really want answers to all those questions, you have to begin on that journey by yourself as I said.

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Believe what? Everything they say? Everything they do?
There is when there is no evidence to support the position... i.e. when that faith is blind. Otherwise it is merely a subconscious assessment of probability based on previous experience.
Drivel.
You are committing a rather poor false dilemma and analogy.
The "logical" child (if indeed one could classify one as such) would see that there would be no harm in putting their hands out, having built up a bank of experience with their parent so that the request would be complied with.
Children are far more logical than you give them credit for. They don't just trust anyone... they trust those with whom they have experience.

Compare your example with a complete stranger asking the child to get into his car because there are some sweets there.
Your "child of faith" would just jump in the car?

The word faith is open to interpretation from "gullible" to "assured knowledge."

The faith I illustrated was not about submission to the pedo in the car, but the trust in a worthy parent.

According to the Bible which is the source of knowledge to build faith on, faith was given to you at conception, with the life that is in you.

It is a type of wonder and belief that life has a promise in it. But usually it is not long before a child realises that the world is far from perfect.

However, it has a choice to continue with that faith and add knowledge to it, making the best of their character and influence in the world, or spitting the dummy.

Mistakes are not an issue, trends of mind and character are, yet faith goes beyond that and trusts in Christ regardless of any odds against the individual. That faith is rewarded with eternal life.

 

[Sarkus]

The word faith is open to interpretation from "gullible" to "assured knowledge."

The faith I illustrated was not about submission to the pedo in the car, but the trust in a worthy parent.

Yet the issue here is that you try to assign the same level of faith that a child has in their parent, based on the evidence built up over time, to that of religion where there is zero evidence that rationally is attributable to "God".
i.e. you are committing a false analogy through inconsistent use of the term "faith".

According to the Bible which is the source of knowledge to build faith on, faith was given to you at conception, with the life that is in you.

And on what basis do you attribute the Bible as the "source of knowledge to build faith on"?
Is it perhaps because that same Bible told you?

 

[Gerhard Kemmerer]

Yet the issue here is that you try to assign the same level of faith that a child has in their parent, based on the evidence built up over time, to that of religion where there is zero evidence that rationally is attributable to "God".
i.e. you are committing a false analogy through inconsistent use of the term "faith".

And on what basis do you attribute the Bible as the "source of knowledge to build faith on"?
Is it perhaps because that same Bible told you?

Yes, it has to be tested by what it claims. It claims to be the chosen medium through which contact or understanding of God is promised.

 

[Saturnine Pariah]

If you really want answers to all those questions, you have to begin on that journey by yourself as I said.

:facepalm:

 

[Syne]

The implication is much more than a mere "difference in time rates", because if that's all it is, it's not knowledge of the future at all.

You basically seem to be saying that because time might not actually pass for a god (in the same sense that it might not pass for a photon), that all events throughout the fullness of time are known, even as we sit here waiting for them to unfold from our perspective. It's like saying that a photon currently en route to Earth from the sun knows it's going to be absorbed by a chlorophyll molecule because it's also present at the point of absorption. I mean, that's what temporal omnipresence is, isn't it? Being "present" at every point in time.

You're going to need to do a better job of explaining how all this is compatible with the position that the future doesn't, in some sense, already exist.


I wasn't referring to previous discussion between you and me, but previous discussion in general.

I never said anything about things being known "as we sit here waiting for them to unfold from our perspective". I actually, explicitly, said "nothing yet to unfold". For a photon, emission and absorption are one event. Only your assumptions are leading you to infer from anything I have said that the future already exists.

And it is likewise your assumptions that infer anything I have said have some special relevance to some other part of this discussion.

Not sure if I wholly agree with the abstraction description entire, as it implies the will of god can only be equal at most to the sum of all wills? I would say that the will of god/creative-source is the will of people (whole universe's collective will sentient or basic (physical properties etc.)) but also the will of god is more than the sum of all within our scale of reference (which I could explain further but it eats into my work in progress).

The will of a god can only be assumed to be, at most, the will actually expressed in reality. Any further willing obviously has no impact or relevance to reality, and cannot be considered with anything more than blind faith. Yes, the whole is usually greater than the sum of parts, but that does not imply that that whole exercises an intention that defines any further free agency.

 

[universaldistress]

The will of a god can only be assumed to be, at most, the will actually expressed in reality. Any further willing obviously has no impact or relevance to reality, and cannot be considered with anything more than blind faith. Yes, the whole is usually greater than the sum of parts, but that does not imply that that whole exercises an intention that defines any further free agency.

Depends on the nature of the theorised god.

 

[Rav]

I never said anything about things being known "as we sit here waiting for them to unfold from our perspective". I actually, explicitly, said "nothing yet to unfold". For a photon, emission and absorption are one event. Only your assumptions are leading you to infer from anything I have said that the future already exists.

Well then, as long as we're here, in the present, waiting for future events to unfold, a god can't know them. Not by virtue of temporal omnipresence alone anyway. Kinda like how a photon, even though emission and absorption may essentially be one event, hasn't actually been absorbed yet.

Try thinking of all this in terms of divine intervention. Could a god, for example, intervene in human affairs for the purpose of revealing the details of a future event, where such details are known by virtue of that god's temporal omnipresence?

The difference between you and me in this discussion is that you're simply sticking to your initial proclamation, while I'm exploring the mechanics and thinking through the implications. That's why I'm saying more than you are, and characterizing your position in ways that you don't like.

Maybe we can get somewhere if you provide a more detailed picture.

 

[sigurdV]

This is how I see it:

1 What is the answer to my next question?
2 You answer: X.
3 I then ask you: What is not X?
4 And you have no correct answer!
5 At 3 I demonstrate my free will.
6 At 4 I prove you cant see into the future.
7 QED

 

[Sarkus]

This is how I see it:

1 What is the answer to my next question?
2 You answer: X.
3 I then ask you: What is not X?
4 And you have no correct answer!
5 At 3 I demonstrate my free will.
6 At 4 I prove you cant see into the future.
7 QED

That's true if the issue is one of merely foretelling the future from within the same sense of time... i.e. foretelling the future and free-will are mutually exclusive for people experiencing time in the same way.

But the issue is one of predestination, which generally (as far as I am aware) refers to the concept that everything is willed by God.
And I'm not sure your logic matches with the concepts under discussion.

 

[Syne]

Well then, as long as we're here, in the present, waiting for future events to unfold, a god can't know them. Not by virtue of temporal omnipresence alone anyway. Kinda like how a photon, even though emission and absorption may essentially be one event, hasn't actually been absorbed yet.

Try thinking of all this in terms of divine intervention. Could a god, for example, intervene in human affairs for the purpose of revealing the details of a future event, where such details are known by virtue of that god's temporal omnipresence?

The difference between you and me in this discussion is that you're simply sticking to your initial proclamation, while I'm exploring the mechanics and thinking through the implications. That's why I'm saying more than you are, and characterizing your position in ways that you don't like.

Maybe we can get somewhere if you provide a more detailed picture.

You cannot enforce your perception of the present upon an observer experiencing an extremely different time rate. Just because your units of measure do not call it a present does not change the fact that such an observer's present encompasses your future. Look at any Minkowski diagram. Regardless of your perspective, a photon cannot tell the difference between emission and absorption events. The relativity of simultaneity is all about your "yet" not meaning the same thing to another observer. You keep saying you understand relativity, but if you did you would not harp on about this.

Only you have assumed divine intervention. It is great that you want to play "what if", but I do not plan to. I have supported my point with sound reason. If you cannot follow that is your issue.

 

[Rav]

Only you have assumed divine intervention. It is great that you want to play "what if", but I do not plan to.

The question was hypothetical, and is relevant to our discussion. So I'll ask again:

Could a god, for example, intervene in human affairs for the purpose of revealing the details of a future event, where such details are known by virtue of that god's temporal omnipresence?

I have supported my point with sound reason. If you cannot follow that is your issue.

I don't think you've properly supported your contention at all. You're just sort of pointing at some mysterious metaphysical possibility, and assuming that relativity makes your case for you. But I want to dig deeper. I want to examine your contention in light of everything that might come to bear on it somehow. But it's like you're allergic to providing or confirming any additional details. I keep constructing my posts in a way that is designed to draw them out of you, but it doesn't seem to be working.

 

[Syne]

I don't think you've properly supported your contention at all. You're just sort of pointing at some mysterious metaphysical possibility, and assuming that relativity makes your case for you. But I want to dig deeper. I want to examine your contention in light of everything that might come to bear on it somehow. But it's like you're allergic to providing or confirming any additional details. I keep constructing my posts in a way that is designed to draw them out of you, but it doesn't seem to be working.

"Everything that might come to bear"? Should we also seriously discuss how any of this may relate to invisible unicorns? Just because some people make claims does not mean that those claims must be take seriously, contrary to hopes and wishes of cranks everywhere.