Free will revisited

[coyote]

Hitetlen:

Many a time posters emphasised that God gives us free will and that is a sign of his love. From that it would follow, that taking away free will would be a sign of God not loving us any more. Posters also said that God does not despise sinners, he loves them as well.

Also that God allows us to make bad decisions, and if later we beg for forgiveness, he would pardon our transgressions. All this sounds good on the surface.

Here comes the problem: we all make our decisions on incomplete information. We are without total knowledge, especially when it comes to God’s very existence. There is no proof for that, merely “hints”, which can be reasonably doubted. This is why believers emphasise faith over proof. Still, well and good.

The proverbial substance is going to hit the fan now:

As soon as we die, and be brought into the presence of God, we shall have irrefutable proof that he exists. At that very moment we would be in the position to make truly informed decision whether we wish to be in his presence or not. But at the same moment God takes our free will away and renders his judgment without allowing us to make our decision based on actual knowledge. This is very strange to say the least. Either he stops loving us at that moment (hence taking our free will away), or he does not want us to have full information to use in our decision making. Neither of these is a palatable solution.

To take our free will away just when are able to make truly informed decision is unjust and cruel.

What is your take on this analysis?

The premis of this argument is one that I too struggle with. And, unlike the OP, I am a believer.

God, being the Creator and being omniscient and omnipotent chooses the personality, temperment, character, strengths and weaknesses of each individual created. Then, according to western theology, threatens punishment, rejection and torment for ETERNITY when the weaknesses of the individual manifest. Then as an additional caveat reveals that some individuals will be given divine “grace” to resist and overcome these God-given failure potentials, thus acquiring “Salvation”, whereas others will not receive such grace.

All this, and the created individual has no complicity in his/her own existence. That is, s/he does not ask to be created or given existence. Yet has the threat of suffering guaranteed to them for behavior that is the consequence of the imperfections endowed upon him/her by the Creator.

Personally, I can not reconcile the theology of what God is supposed to be with what I actually experience of life. Also, the profferred vision of Heaven, where the “acceptable” spend ETERNITY (constantly) singing the praises of God sounds like no kind of “heaven” to me. It more supports the image of an egomaniacle diety to whom I am not grateful to be compelled to serve. Because certainly if I had knowledge beforehand and truly been given the CHOICE, I would have elected NOT to participate.

What is the point?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

Einstein did NOT believe in God, his famous quote notwithstanding.

I disagree. “Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called ‘the necessity for a beginning’ and eventually to ‘the presence of a superior reasoning power.’” (Dr. Fritz Schaefer, Professor of Chemistry, nominated for the Nobel Prize). He did not give “grudging acceptance” based upon faith, but due to the evidence before him.

Likewise, Nobel winning Physicist Arno Penzias states regarding the scientific evidence…

“The best data we have are exactly what I would have predicted had I nothing to go on but the first five books of Moses, the Psalms and the Bible as a whole” (Malcom W. Browne, “Clues to the Universe Origin Expected”, New York Times (March 12, 1978)

They believed on faith, and they projected their faith into nature

What a completely unsupported claim. There have been many atheist who have converted. Did they project their as-of-yet non-existent faith onto the evidence? That’s a real good trick, seeing that they had no faith until they looked at the evidence.

If you read the Bible, even the demons believe in Jesus, but they don’t have faith in Him. So belief in the sense that one intellectually assents to the existence of a god is not dependent upon supernatural faith.

No, the “demons” (another unsupported superstition!) KNOW Jesus. One does not beleive in what one KNOWS. Knowledge and belief are mutually exclusive.

Your less-than-average capability is showing again. The Bible states, “Even the demons believe (Gk ****pisteuo)–and shudder.” (James 2:19). The Greek word pisteuo means “to believe.”

Do you really presume to know more about “the theology” than I do? When you make such absurd claims about Christianity, you show that you lack easily obtainable knowledge, and yet reject the theology despite ignorance of that which you reject. We call that “blind rejection” and is just as foolish as “blind faith.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

The error in the original premise is that it is presumed that God takes away free will after death. He does not.

Another error is that humans do not receive actual knowledge of God before death. Humans DO received actual knowledge, although they do not receive perfect knowledge.

Thus the conclusion is drawn on false premises. If the antagonist wishes to understand “the theology” then building a stawman upon false premises in no way held by “the theology” is not the correct approach.

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

No lack of charity intended, but you don’t seem too me to be very knowledgeable of the theology you seem to reject. Based upon the limited evidence before us, you don’t even seem to have higher than average capabilities. You may be very good at math, but your knowledge of “the theology” is clearly deficient.

You may disagree, but I don’t share the confidence in your capabilties that you do. Your lack of belief is not due to a lack of gifts given to you. It is possible that you simply lack the intellect or are simply lazy, and that’s why you lack knowledge of “the theology” of God. It could be that your pride keeps you from admitting that you were wrong about “the theology” that you oppose.

I never pretended that I am very knowledgeable of theology as you put it. But I am quite well versed in philosophy in general. I don’t think that one needs to delve into the details of theology to understand its fundamentals and premises.

For example: one does not need to understand all the details of astrology in order to criticize it. One does not need to get into the details of palm reading to reject it.

No matter what you think, theology is a set of human concepts. Being human concepts, and not too complicated at that, I and anyone else can understand them. The alleged attributes of God can be scrutinized and criticized without accepting them.

Your objections are not unknown to me: many times people say that unless you believe what theology says, you are not qualified to make criticism. That is ridiculous: I don’t have to believe astrology to see that it is bogus. Theology has certain predicitons and allegations about us. They cannot be substantiated, they must be accepted on faith.

None of us has volitional control over what we believe in. You cannot force yourself to believe in the tooth fairy, no matter how hard you try. I cannot believe in a deity, because it makes no sense to me. But I still can understand the attributes the believers are attaching to this deity. I don’t have to accept them to see the inconsistencies and the contradictions.

As it came out in this thread: the alleged “all-merciful” nature of God is contradicted by common sense. You can try and twist the meaning of “merciful” but that will not fly: if God is always merciful toward all his creations, then the concept of hell makes no sense. No entity can impose eternal punishment and still deserve the title: “loving”. Words have meanings; and even believers are not allowed to borrow a word and use it outside its accepted meaning.

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

I disagree. “Einstein ultimately gave grudging acceptance to what he called ‘the necessity for a beginning’ and eventually to ‘the presence of a superior reasoning power.’” (Dr. Fritz Schaefer, Professor of Chemistry, nominated for the Nobel Prize). He did not give “grudging acceptance” based upon faith, but due to the evidence before him.Which (even if true) has nothing to do with the God of Christianity.

itsjustdave1988:

Your less-than-average capability is showing again. The Bible states, “Even the demons believe (Gk ****pisteuo)–and shudder.” (James 2:19). The Greek word pisteuo means "to believe."All you “proved” is that the Bible is not worth of consideration. But that is hardly newsworthy. You cannot use the Bible to substantiate God, while also presupposing that the Bible is God’s word. Circular reasoning is not acceptable.

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

Another error is that humans do not receive actual knowledge of God before death. Humans DO received actual knowledge, although they do not receive perfect knowledge.

Proof? Or at least some supporting evidence?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

coyote,

coyote:

The premis of this argument is one that I too struggle with. And, unlike the OP, I am a believer.

After reading what you posted, it appears that like the OP you fail to have been properly catechized.

God, being the Creator and being omniscient and omnipotent chooses the personality, temperment, character, strengths and weaknesses of each individual created. Then, according to western theology, threatens punishment, rejection and torment for ETERNITY when the weaknesses of the individual manifest.

Firstly, God made you good, not weak.

Secondly, just because man becomes weak by choosing evil over good, that doesn’t mean man is incapable of the obedience that God demands, according to the religion you claim as your own.

Every man, for example, has sufficient grace given to them by God to overcome any weaknesses. Yet, they have to cooperate with that gift, and if they, by their free will, reject good and commit evil even when given the extra catalyst of grace, they only have themselves to blame.

You cannot say “God made me weak.” That is contrary to Catholic theology. On the contrary, God made you good. You became weak by a poor use of your own natural gifts.

Then as an additional caveat reveals that some individuals will be given divine “grace” to resist and overcome these God-given failure potentials, thus acquiring “Salvation”, whereas others will not receive such grace.

Again, this is a conclusion built upon poor catechesis. We are created with natural and good gifts. You’ve been infected with Protestant views on total depravity that Catholicism has condemned.

Everyone is given grace by God so as to have the potential of everlasting life. If some reject this grace, than it is their fault.

All this, and the created individual has no complicity in his/her own existence. That is, s/he does not ask to be created or given existence.

Yes, life is a gratuitous gift, not deserved, not asked for.

Yet has the threat of suffering guaranteed to them for behavior that is the consequence of the imperfections endowed upon him/her by the Creator.

Incorrect. You imply God has created man evil. That’s false. Human nature is good, even in its fallen state. As such, by natural gifts alone, man can will to choose good.

Personally, I can not reconcile the theology of what God is supposed to be with what I actually experience of life.

I can see why. If I understood Catholicism as you did, I couldn’t reconcile it either. However, what you have described above is not Catholicism.

Also, the profferred vision of Heaven, where the “acceptable” spend ETERNITY (constantly) singing the praises of God sounds like no kind of “heaven” to me. It more supports the image of an egomaniacle diety to whom I am not grateful to be compelled to serve. Because certainly if I had knowledge beforehand and truly been given the CHOICE, I would have elected NOT to participate.

The choice is yours. However, there are two ways in front of us. Be eternally in the presence of Love itself, or be apart from love for all eternity. Characterizing heavenly bliss in the manner that you do is far from Catholic teaching. Have you never experience true love? Was it egomaniacle?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

Proof? Or at least some supporting evidence?

Proof of what? That humans receive actual knowledge without having to receive perfect knowledge?

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

All you “proved” is that the Bible is not worth of consideration.

No, actually what I’ve shown is that you are ignorant of that which you reject. I find that explains much.

In essence, this discussion seems to be summarized as follows:

Hitetlen: "I don’t believe in “the theology.”

Dave: “Why?”

Hitetlen: “Because it teaches this and that.”

Dave: “No, it doesn’t”

Hitetlen: “Well, I dont’ believe it anyway.”

Dave: “Perhaps you should attempt to learn more about that which you say you don’t believe. Because what you reject is not “the theology” but a false caricature of it.”

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

They believed on faith, and they projected their faith into nature, a common behaviour.

This guy disagrees…

Frank Tipler, Professor of Mathematical Physics at Tulane University…

“When I began my career as a cosmologist some twenty years ago, I was a convinced atheist. I never in my wildest dreams imagined that one day I would be writing a book purporting to show that the central claims of Judeo-Christian theology are in fact true…I have been forced into these conclusions by the inexorable logic of my own special branch of physics.” (Tipler, F.J. 1994. The Physics Of Immortality. New York, Doubleday, Preface.)

Perhaps there’s hope for you yet.

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

Proof of what? That humans receive actual knowledge without having to receive perfect knowledge?

No, proof that there is some evidence of God’s existence without resorting to faith.

 

[coyote]

Yes, life is a gratuitous gift, not deserved, not asked for.

Yes, and IF I could have seen beforehand what this “gift” entailed and been given the choice to accept or reject, I would choose not to be a participant.

 

[Hitetlen]

itsjustdave1988:

No, actually what I’ve shown is that you are ignorant of that which you reject. I find that explains much.

In essence, this discussion seems to be summarized as follows:

Hitetlen: "I don’t believe in “the theology.”

Dave: “Why?”

Hitetlen: “Because it teaches this and that.”

Dave: “No, it doesn’t”

Hitetlen: “Well, I dont’ believe it anyway.”

Dave: “Perhaps you should attempt to learn more about that which you say you don’t believe. Because what you reject is not “the theology” but a false caricature of it.”

It would be funny if it were not so incorrect. Let’s fix it:

Hitetlen: "I don’t believe in “the theology.”

Dave: “Why?”

Hitetlen: “Because it teaches this and that.”

Dave: “No, it doesn’t”

Hitetlen: “So what do the words “this and that” mean according to you?”

Dave: “Well they could mean what you say, but we use them in a different manner”.

Hitetlen: “Why do you use these words differently when they pertain to God? Don’t you know that this is called the ‘fallacy of the stolen concept’?”

Dave: “Well, we use them as we do, and if you don’t understand them, it just shows your ignorance”.

You see, I reject the idea that you can redefine words to suit your needs. That is all there is to it.

I see such things: “God loves the sinners, but “allows” them to “choose” hell”. What kind of “love” is that? If God would love as we do, he would destroy hell, so no one could possibly get there. The atheist “sinners” who allegedly “choose” hell, don’t even believe that there is such a place, how could they “choose” to get there? If you wish to be taken seriously, you should get off your high horse and try to use words according to their meaning. Then we could have a meaningful discussion.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen:

No, proof that there is some evidence of God’s existence without resorting to faith.

I didn’t say there are proofs of God’s existence in the strict sense of the word. Instead, there’s “actual knowledge” of God’s existence in the form of converging and convincing evidence which equates to a “preponderance of evidence” sufficient and reasonable to believe. Your nonsensical rejection of any evidence other than that which you experience personally severely limits your ability to attain knowledge of any sort, let alone knowledge about God. I suggest you don’t actually follow this epistemology, but only profess it for polemical reasons.

So I suggest you look beyond only that which is experimentally provable. There are some things we’ve come to know through science that cannot be experimentally proven, as for example, some experiments would require a particle accelorator the size of the earth. No funding seems available for that experiment.

Nontheless, we have scientific postulate which are reasonable based upon a preponderance of evidence. For example, everything which has a beginning, has a cause. We cannot prove this experimentally. However, we can infer this based upon what we do see come into existence.

Since scientists assert evidence that supports the conclusion that the universe has a beginning, then it appears that it has a cause, and that cause is external to the universe.

Nobel-prize winning Physicist Arno Penzias*,* for example, wrote: “Astronomy leads us to a unique event, a universe which was created out of nothing, one with the very delicate balance needed to provide exactly the conditions required to permit life, and one which has an underlying (one might say ‘supernatural’) plan.” (Margenau, H and R.A. Varghese, ed. 1992. Cosmos, Bios, and Theos. La Salle, IL, Open Court, p. 83.)

This is just one of many converging clues to the existence of God.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

Hitetlen: “Why do you use these words differently when they pertain to God? Don’t you know that this is called the ‘fallacy of the stolen concept’?”

LOL!!! You are aware, I hope, that the Catholic Church was teaching its doctrines about God even before the English words we now use even existed, right?

If the modern word “mercy” derives from the Latin word merces for example, then I’m thinking the LATINS know what they meant by that word even before the English word existed which derived from it.

I think then, it is reasonable to conclude that the “stolen concept” is the latter concept, not the former, which indeed predated the English language.

Nonetheless, Merriam-Webster lists several meanings of “mercy” and the usage I’ve presented is in accord with current general and more broad usage, your insistence upon only a narrow usage notwithstanding.

 

[itsjustdave1988]

coyote:

Yes, and IF I could have seen beforehand what this “gift” entailed and been given the choice to accept or reject, I would choose not to be a participant.

It seems you still don’t know what this gift entails. This gift entails love, your false view of fallen nature notwithstanding. You are the first I’ve ever heard to be anti-love. Love comes with risk. Having been in love, I find it is worth the risk.

 

[RobNY]

Hitetlen:

Now, let’s see if you practice what you preach: Since you have never seen the tooth fairy, you MUST believe in it, if you follow Paul. If you follow Tertullian also, who said: “Credo quia absurdum est”, then you also have to believe in the Invisible Pink Unicorn, since it is not only invisible, but also absurd, being invisible and pink being contradictory. Do you believe in those, too?

According to James Patrick Holding this is a bogus quote (go down to “Tertullian.”)

“It is by all means to be believed because it is absurd.”

TD. Alistair McGrath in Dawkins’ God (100) cited Robert D. Sider, “Credo Quia Absurdum?” Classical World 73 (1978): 417-19 as an authority for the debunking of this quote.

Origins? McGrath was specifically after Dawkins’ A Devil’s Chaplain (109) but it comes from earlier, in a work by Farrer about Calvin, where it is found with no source.

So, I’m not quite sure how reliable JP Holding’s assessment of it is, but I’d appreciate if you could bring a source for the quote now that it has come into question.

 

[svoboda]

Hitetlen:

No, proof that there is some evidence of God’s existence without resorting to faith.

I guess it depends on how you define God. If you’re a pantheist as I am, there is plenty of evidence.

 

[svoboda]

Hitetlen:

I see such things: “God loves the sinners, but “allows” them to “choose” hell”. What kind of “love” is that? If God would love as we do, he would destroy hell, so no one could possibly get there. The atheist “sinners” who allegedly “choose” hell, don’t even believe that there is such a place, how could they “choose” to get there? If you wish to be taken seriously, you should get off your high horse and try to use words according to their meaning. Then we could have a meaningful discussion.

Hope I won’t repeat things I haven’t read in the thread:

Catholics believe that the all knowing God knows what every human being will choose in terms of heaven and hell.

If this is the case, then it means that the all-knowing and supposedly all-good Creator created most of us (are you familiar with the wide-way/narrow-way verses from the bible?) knowing that we’d end up in hell. Why not create only those he knows in advance will freely choose heaven?

In addition, God is supposed to be all-just, but is it justice to condemn to hell people who commit finite offenses. Infinite punishment for finite sin is not just.

The idea that finite offenses merit infinite punishment because they offend and infinite God or infinite good. But this doesn’t make sense, because venial sins also offend an infinite God/good, and yet they don’t merit infinite punishment. Plus, the fact that an infinite being is offended doesn’t make the offense itself infinite. Finite, limited beings should not be able to commit infinite offenses.

The idea that hell is really a choice that we make when we reject God. The “chief punishment” of hell is the eternal separation from God (who really loves us and wishes you wanted to be with him).

But this is again a paradox because here on earth we enjoy an existence without God, many atheists actively reject God and want nothing to do with any kind of a creator. If God is good then as I see it nothing would prevent him from allowing those who “reject” him for an ETERNITY to live the way we live here on earth. If I were God, I might even create an interesting/exciting world for those who “reject” me to explore.

I think most people could be very happy by simply having relationships with each other, learning, creating, sharing etc. There is no need for the whole fire and gnashing of teeth business.

 

[doomhammer]

(Yes, pride is one of the deadly sins… so be it.)

James 4, 6: “God resists the proud, but gives grace to the humble.”
Galatians 6, 3: “For if anyone thinks he is something when he is nothing, he is deluding himself.”
Proverbs 16, 18: “Pride goes before disaster, and a haughty spirit before a fall.”
Isaiah 14, 13-15: “You said in your heart: “I will scale the heavens; Above the stars of God I will set up my throne; I will take my seat on the Mount of Assembly, in the recesses of the North. I will ascend above the tops of the clouds; I will be like the Most High!” Yet down to the nether world you go to the recesses of the pit!”.
You are a perfect candidate for Hell (with your all free will!)! Cheers???