Free will? I dont think so

[Freddy]

Freddy,
We do not follow it because it ‘works’. Christ didn’t say “Hey, I have a great idea, and I think it will work! Let’s try it out!”. He told us to do it out of love of Him

The golden rule is universal. Every society has had it. There are too many examples for me to start quoting them. Just Google it. Not everyone believes, or has believed that Jesus is the son of God. You can follow it out of love for Him. That’s not an option for most of the planet. Notwithstanding that societies formed waaaay before Jesus’s time.

 

[o_mlly]

I know that your interlocutor will post yet another faulty argument. Because I know that, your poor interlocutor cannot will to do otherwise. Let’s see if that pans out.

Well, how about that … got it right, in spades, no less!

Does God’s knowledge prohibit man’s free will?

I like The Three Stooges and have a DVD of some of their many episodes – watched it many times. Now, I play the DVD and, let’s say, I hit pause. In this particular episode, I know what has happened – just watched it. And, I also know the future – Moe will attempt an eye-gouge against which Curly will employ the eye-gouge-defense.

Did I cause those future events because I knew the future? No.

(Please Note: This uploaded content is no longer available.)

 

[TheTomist]

The problem as I see it is simultaneity. Your DVD came into existence after the events it portrays. However Creation came into existence in total all at once. Past, present, future, simultaneously created and sustained in its existence by God according to traditional Christian proposal. This seems to defeat the cause effect relationship where the free will decision is dependent on whatever effects stimulated it previous to the decision which is based on them. If past, present, and future came into existence simultaneously created by God then that simultaneity defeats the purpose of free will which is having it come after (not simultaneously with) the event that stimulated its action. God would have to “know” your decision, not because he knows the future but even before you decision exists with creation. This would necessitate God deciding your decision for you before it was created in existence. Thoughts?

@aitapyh Yes… Isn’t it amazing how God created Time too? It may be a bit much for you to comprehend (It is for everyone) but he is in an eternal Now. Not an infinite Now, but an eternal one. How could God be any less than that? If we could imagine something greater than God, that thing would be God by definition

 

[TheTomist]

Ok jan10000,
Let’s look at your problems one at a time.

If you claim God is omniscient and omnipotent then he by definition allows Hell to exist.

You want to explain what you think you mean by that statement? Using such words doesn’t give your argument superiority, when there is no logic behind it. I can’t respond when you haven’t defined your argument.

You can’t have it both ways. Is Hell a place OR a state? If it is a place, then you must be physically (or spiritually if you can define that) in Hell to be separated from God. If Hell is a state, you can be ANYWHERE and be in Hell. Which is it?

Why not? Because you say so? Man has both a physical body, and a spiritual body, so while one is in a state of spiritual suffering, (yes a state) who’s to say the body cannot be in a place if physical suffering?

There is NO understanding of the supernatural, for ANYONE. That is why it is called “the supernatural”.

Hahaha! That’s a pretty uneducated thing to say… Funny, cause an agnostic believes the same thing… God is supernatural. We can most certainly come to SOME understanding of Him. We understand that is All Good, and deserving of all our love. We can also come to understand him through His Son, Jesus.

It is sentences like the above that show the complete illogical nature of Hell, theology, and so forth. In the first sentence you say “Satan is outside” time. Then he “lives in his decision”. Finally “once he made”. Don’t you see all three phrases are mutually exclusive? How can an entity live outside time and yet change it’s state?

Okay, so here is a misunderstanding of context. Satan is not “eternal”, but infinite. God is eternal, because he had no start, AND no end. Satan is a created being, but one who is outside of time. It is not contradictory to say he lives in his decision, because he is still a living spirit in that sense, and he was made with… you guessed it… Free Will. And it is because he has Free Will that he could make that decision. And it is because he is outside of time that he will never ‘repent’ of that decision. He has a perfect will, and does not ‘change his mind’.

I will say now, I have NO IDEA what Hell will be like. Whether or not it is a place of physical pain, or spiritual pain, or whatever other conceptions of it one may have, we DO know that it is a place apart from God.

I never said I don’t know if Hell is real! I said that I don’t know exactly what it will be like. And how can I? As purely spiritual beings, there is no physical for the angels, so from what I know, it makes the most sense that their experience of Hell is spiritual torment.

 

[o_mlly]

The problem as I see it is simultaneity. Your DVD came into existence after the events it portrays. However Creation came into existence in total all at once.

Yes, unfortunately, analogies are always imperfect.

Creation came into existence but God’s knowledge of creation did not. "Before I formed you in the womb I knew you (Jeremiah 1:5). God’s knowledge of His creation is eternal, not simultaneous with creation.

Past, present, future, simultaneously created and sustained in its existence by God according to traditional Christian proposal. This seems to defeat the cause effect relationship where the free will decision is dependent on whatever effects stimulated it previous to the decision which is based on them.

I don’t quite understand the sentences above. Perhaps, you could run them by me again.

If by simultaneous you mean God creating and caring for us in time, then yes, I agree. Catholics also believe in Divine Providence. At the moment of a free will decision, actual grace – God’s other gift – beckons us to do good. We, of course, can reject the grace and, by habitually rejecting God’s call to friendship, mute His voice in our conscience. Accepting or rejecting His grace is an act of free will.

So, simultaneity – God gifting us free will and God’s caring for us – both exist. But simultaneity in the sense that we influence changes in God, no that idea we would reject.

 

[EndTimes]

so… if one’s will isn’t free… what is it then?

 

[o_mlly]

I don’t think this is traditional Christian understanding. Perhaps you could reword this so that it can be made more comprehensible. By definition, anything that is knowable has always been known by God.

Not necessary to rewrite; you got it. “anything that is knowable has always been known by God.” Prefer “anything that is knowable is always known to God.” (See below.)

If anything Jeremiah 1:5 proves the case that God had foreknowledge of creation “before” its existence. Or if you prefer simultaneously with creation.

A being outside time in eternity does not have “foreknowledge”, only knowledge. “Fore” and “simul” are prefixes for words relating to time-bound creatures only.

You must agree that either God always had knowledge of creation or had knowledge of creation simultaneously with creation. I prefer the former.

Then we agree. Although I think it correct to write, “God has knowledge …”. God’s knowledge is not time-bound so conditioning His knowledge as anything other than in the present tense would be in error.

… At the point of the creative act God not only created you now, you in the past, and you in the future, but your decisions at all these points in time including your experience of free will in making them. …

I skip to the chase as I am having some difficulty following your train of thought. Following the grammar of your sentence above, you write, “God … created … your decisions”. I think this is in error.

Perhaps this will help. You (God) are writing a simulation program and plan to run sufficient iterations to allow the law of large numbers to validate your outputs. One of the variables (man) is a free floater. You have coefficients and exponents for all the other variables except this one.

So you use a random number generator (assuming one can get a true random number generator) in each iteration to calculate a value for that variable (man).

Now, you (God) wrote the program and control all the variables (laws of nature) except that one variable (man). It’s still your (God’s) creation and you have programmed a “free” agent (man) within the program who is not controlled by the program itself.

After your run, you know the outputs but you did not cause the values of the free floating variable (man). You allowed a random number to feed the value calculation for that variable. The programmer (you/God) did not create the values (decisions) of the variable (man).

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

The golden rule is universal. Every society has had it. There are too many examples for me to start quoting them. Just Google it. Not everyone believes, or has believed that Jesus is the son of God. You can follow it out of love for Him. That’s not an option for most of the planet. Notwithstanding that societies formed waaaay before Jesus’s time.

Not everyone followed the golden rule and there were many practices like slavery that obviously were contrary to it.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

The golden rule is universal. Every society has had it. There are too many examples for me to start quoting them. Just Google it. Not everyone believes, or has believed that Jesus is the son of God. You can follow it out of love for Him. That’s not an option for most of the planet. Notwithstanding that societies formed waaaay before Jesus’s time.

Not everyone followed the golden rule…

Who said they did?

 

[Hume]

Not everyone followed the golden rule and there were many practices like slavery that obviously were contrary to it.

The “White Man’s Burden” of the 19th century was based on the GR.

“If I were an uneducated savage, I’d want some wise and benevolent race to take me by the hand and lead me to a better life than this malaria-infested jungle”.

It was the GR+racism. Hopefully you see the problem.

 

[VanitasVanitatum]

Hopefully you see the problem.

Problem with what? The golden rule? Ethics?

Who said they did?

Then I guess there are exceptions.

 

[Freddy]

Freddy:

Who said they did?

Then I guess there are exceptions.

Naturally. If everyone followed it then we wouldn’t need a judicial system. But if you decide to take advantage of those who do follow it then it’s all too easy to do. But it works if the majority of people follow it.

I did read somewhere that there was a mathematical proposal put forward that gave a percentage figure on the number of people not following the golden rule before a given society collapses. I’ll see if I can find some info on that.

 

[TheTomist]

Ok, so I would like to start by offering my apologies for my sharp words. It was a bit of the Irish coming out in me. I spoke out of frustration. But you gotta understand, it is very hard to keep a civilized discussion when everyone of my direct questions has been side stepped, and diverted with another question. But despite that, I was wrong to use speak in that manner.

 

[John_Martin]

Hmmm. Can you give me one concrete indisputable fact about the supernatural?
I can give you an unlimited number of facts about the natural.

For example, you claim God is all-good and deserving of our love. For arguments sake, I will dispute that. Can you counter with a proof?

Revelation can never be proven (else no need of revelation).
However, since all reasoning philosophers worthy of the title know that truth cannot contradict truth, it is sufficient for a recipient of revelation, trusting the person of the revealer, and thus knowing the revealed truth, to simply show error in some supposed proof that argues contrary to revealed truth, which error can inevitably be found when that proof contradicts revelation known by the authorized receiver of revelation.

Error can be shown to any proof of no free will without proving there be free will, since the truth known by the insider to divine wisdom (that there is free will) knows there must be discoverable defect in a proof of what cannot finally be true contrary to the true.

 

[TheTomist]

I think a concrete fact that we can know about the supernatural, is that it exists. As well as that, that it is above our natural existence.

 

[J.r.r.chesterlewis]

the Golden Rule is by no means universally understood; the Aztecs had no problem with offering human sacrifices, and that goes for Carthage before the Punic Wars too, and there are many societies that had to be taught the actual meaning of the rule. The Communist Regime and the Nazi Regime cared very little for this rule. I am aware and very glad that most societies follow the golden rule. it is why, not how, they follow the golden rule- according to what you’re saying- and other laws that very much un-impresses me. I am a Catholic, so I believe that Jesus is the Son of God, and I am arguing from that standpoint, and if you have read the Bible, then you will know that Christ calls himself “The Way, the Truth, and the Life”, and as God is unchangeable (we believe in a perfect God, so to say that He changes would be to say that He could become imperfect, and therefore not God), the Truth is unchangeable. It is very obvious that societies formed before Christ. But they all claimed to have divine revelation of some sort. their social bonds were more than just “this feels good” or “this works”. they were bound by the conviction that they were following divine law that they couldn’t change from whatever deities they worshiped. the Hebrew society, according to the Bible, was formed from the descendants of Abraham, who was given very specific instructions on how to live from God. “Do unto others as you would have done to you” was unheard of by many cultures before Christ. it was blood for blood and “an eye for an eye”. this latter rule was given to the Jews by God in the Bible until they were ready for a rule that they couldn’t fully understand. “Why should we do good to those who hate us?” the Jews would have asked. but the answer is, “because that other person was created in the image and likeness of God, just like us.” this, of course is the Christian standpoint in general, though I’m sure many Christians disagree. but the point is: neither most ancient cultures or Christ were Utilitarian. they had mainly religious reasons for their teaching.

 

[Gorgias]

Your proposal would mean that Man didn’t exhibit any reason at one moment in time and then was granted it the next. And he then instantly knows the reason why he’s doing something. So maybe he’s looking for a shelter or thinking about how to catch a meal and seemingly has no reason for doing so and then suddenly thinks ‘Hey, what just happened? Now I know why I’m doing this’. Does that make sense to you?

So, in a Judeo-Christian context, when you write “Man” here, it only means one “man” – the one we call by the name ‘Adam’. Everyone else with reason comes into being with a human soul and rationality.

Does it make sense to me? It’s the very definition of Descartes’ “cogito, ergo sum”, isn’t it?

Keep adding it and there’ll be a point when we can all agree the colour is now green but there never was a point when it instantly changed to green. It simply became more of one and less the other. That’s how species work. So there is no ‘point on the continuum where we can say “this thing” and not “that thing.’

Two thoughts:

• you change perspective mid-way through your paint example. You begin by talking about an objective issue (“is the paint blue or is it green?”) and then you shift to a subjective issue of opinion and consensus (“can we all agree it’s green?”). The two are distinctly different questions. I’d disagree that the former is merely subjective, inasmuch as it deals with a particular and distinct consideration. If you just mean that there’s no consensus on speciation, that’s a different story – there’s an objective standard, but we just haven’t reached it yet.
• Pointing to one generation and saying “that’s when it happened” is precisely what finding the history of the evolution of humans is all about! If you’re saying we can’t do that, then you’re saying that the science of origins is pointless.

And I’m not sure what you mean by the reference ‘homini’.

I looked for it and didn’t find the post you cite. Maybe it was a misspelling. What I typically refer to is “hominin” or “hominins”. And, when I do, in the present context, I’m typically talking about the physical being that had evolved to the point of having everything that humans have except an immortal soul. (And no, that’s not a scientific distinction, since science can’t talk about souls. It’s on the level of philosophy / theology.)

 

[whatistrue]

If God came down and told us directly all we need to know from a moral and theological standpoint, no one would argue.

You have higher opinion of the capacity of humans to accept what they don’t want to believe than I do. I believe that many people would simply maintain that they (and everyone else) were hallucinating.

 

[Gorgias]

The issue with all religions, including Christianity, is that they are man-made.

IYHO, you mean.

If God came down and told us directly all we need to know from a moral and theological standpoint, no one would argue.

Ahh, but He did – in the person of Jesus – and yes… people argued!

 

[John_Martin]

If we agree that a revelatory statement cannot be proven…ever…how do we “prove” that a particular person was authorized to receive revelation ( by authorized to receive I mean those who reveal to others what they have received as revelation) whose given authority itself would be revelation?

“My sheep know me”
We joined Jesus when called, without asking for a sign. He, in his Apostolically appointed messengers is desirable to be joined to.
We know.
And all we need to do is show error in what is in error. That we can be certain we will be able to find error, we know because it is in error, though others do not know how well are certain.