W
wasmit
Guest
How do you know?Maybe you’re pre-programmed, but I know I’m not.
No person can truthfully say that “All my thoughts and actions are not pre-programmed”, because no-one knows that.
How do you know?Maybe you’re pre-programmed, but I know I’m not.
That is inconsistent with an omniscient and omnipotent creator god.Regardless of the genetic make-up that God allowed when sperm and egg met, each and every individual can choose when it comes to moral issues.
That is inconsistent with an omniscient and omnipotent creator god.Of course, environment may predispose people to come to different conclusions about external things (like whether to have a beer, oj or H20), but when it comes to RIGHT and WRONG, we’re given freedom of choice, or free will, if you prefer.
If there is an omniscient and omnipotent creator god, free will cannot exist. (other religions also have this type of god).So if there is a God (only in the Christian sense?), that implies no free will. But if there isn’t a God, that implies free will?
There can be no will of any kind, if we are nothing more than a selection of random chemical reactions and electrical impulses.But if there isn’t a God, that implies free will?
Again - watching you make the choice (omiscience) is not the same thing as making the choice for you (puppeteering).Then he is not omniscient.
No it isn’t. You are misunderstanding what these terms mean, I think.That is inconsistent with an omniscient and omnipotent creator god.
I think you might be missing the point that, under these assumptions, creating humans while having omniscience and omnipiotence implies that all choices are pre-made. Because he knows every decision, and has the power to change every decision, at the moment of his creation of humans.Again - watching you make the choice (omiscience) is not the same thing as making the choice for you (puppeteering).
God is not a puppeteer.
There is also the additional assumption that god created all humans (while at the same time having omnipotence and omniscience)No it isn’t. You are misunderstanding what these terms mean, I think.
Omniscient means “sees all”. “Omnipotent” means “powers all.”
God watches us without interfering with our choices, and He is the source of our life - our ability to move and to think, etc.
This touches on something that can be common to Catholic, non-Christian, and atheist alike.…
So, the spirit is in us …
So, we need to all know our own spirit.
At one time in my life, not too long ago, I was to the point of not wanting to live due to sin. Yet, at the same time…I prayed everynight…for my Jesus’ to come and heal me. So, I always had hope…which is a virtue given from God. A will to live over took me.This touches on something that can be common to Catholic, non-Christian, and atheist alike.
Regardless of any preferred religious mythology (or none),
anyone can take the path of self-inquiry.
If you believe you are an independent conscious being,
you can inquire as to who you really are.
Who is it that thinks?
Who is it that feels?
Who is it doing the believing or disbelieving?
If you believe in some part of your being existing after physical death, what is that part?
If you are not conscious of that part, then everything you are conscious of will cease to exist after death.
Just who/what are we really?
:
Originally Posted by wasmit forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
I can think of at least two uncaused events.
Virtual particles being spontaneously generated inside a vacuum annd radioactive decay.
was::
Originally Posted by steve b forums.catholic-questions.org/images/buttons_cad/viewpost.gif
*Wrong.
- particles (call them virtual if you want) are an effect *not a cause. Something caused them to exist in the first place.
- Vacuum is an effect. What causes a vacuum?
- radioactivity is an effect. what causes it?
- decay is an effect. What causes it?
Quite the contrary.This is just contradiction, it’s not an argument. I dismissed your point “everything must have a cause” by pointing out two conter examples.
I’m not going to do your homework for you.Can you show that these two examples are invalid, and further show that extrapolating “everything must have a cause” to the time of the big bang is a sound assumption?
You mean like someone is 100% certain because they have mental acceptance of a claim that someone made that the moon is made out of swiss cheese? c’mon friend, you’re the one who is just contradicting without addressing the subject substantively.Belief, defined as “Mental acceptance of a claim as truth.” implies 100% certainty.
When you believe in something and argue for that belief but have no proof or evidence that you can show for such belief, that’s believing in something based on faith… or at least hoping it is true. I would suggest THAT is mixing faith with scienceThat does not follow from my statement.
Can you explain how “They [certainty and not-knowing] are clearly different things. It is OK to be unsure.” implies that I believe in faith?
"
How does God change human decisions?I think you might be missing the point that, under these assumptions, creating humans while having omniscience and omnipiotence implies that all choices are pre-made. Because he knows every decision, and has the power to change every decision, at the moment of his creation of humans.
If you keep reading that blog you wouldn’t have stopped at that quote as if it captured the entire story. Flew was taking baby steps away from his former position, but he was definitely seeing the arguments he depended on previously didn’t work anymore. That doesn’t mean he believed in the God of Abraham Issac and Jacob yet, but he definitely now believed in a Diety, a prime mover. And he uses the example of DNA.Flew based his aristotlean deism on the fallacious assumption that a theory of abiogenesis is impossible to provide. His quote:
My one and only piece of relevant evidence [for an Aristotelian God] is the apparent impossibility of providing a naturalistic theory of the origin from DNA of the first reproducing species … [In fact] the only reason which I have for beginning to think of believing in a First Cause god is the impossibility of providing a naturalistic account of the origin of the first reproducing organisms.However, a cursory look at the current progress of study in abiogenesis proves this to be patently false. Flew realises this, and retracts his reason for deism: His quote:
I now realize that I have made a fool of myself by believing that there were no presentable theories of the development of inanimate matter up to the first living creature capable of reproductionsource:
secweb.infidels.org/?kiosk=articles&id=369
If any one cares to know, I was searching for me. I knew deep in my heart …something was missing. So, with Gods love through Christ, God has given me a new begining.**At one time in my life, not too long ago, I was to the point of not wanting to live due to sin. Yet, at the same time…I prayed everynight…for my Jesus’ to come and heal me. So, I always had hope…which is a virtue given from God. A will to live over took me. **
Thank you God for calling me…in Jesus’ name. For my true passion is you. Jesus’ is true love.
’Ask, and it will be given to you; search, and you will find; knock, and the door will be opened to you. 8 Everyone who asks receives; everyone who searches finds; everyone who knocks will have the door opened. Matthew 7: 7-8
If any one cares to know, I was searching for me. I knew deep in my heart …something was missing. So, with Gods love through Christ, God has given me a new begining.
Be righteous not self righteous.
Also, it still amazes me the words I write…they come from our Lord…I did not intend to get back on here.
You are stuck in the same argument that leads to nowhere. If God created all human beings and knows the choices of each human, moral or otherwise, it follows that, according to your argument, God is operating disengaged from His creation and why, then, would He have created us? We would have no freedom since He is making All of our “choices” for us, including choices of good and evil. Now, logically, why would God make both good and evil choices? To put it concretely, He would have to be a serial killer as well as a humanitarian at the same time which is impossible.Then he is not omniscient.
We come to know the Father through Jesus Christ. We know the Father is not an impersonal God. Instead of starting out with arguments about the existence of God, we can find out all about Him through the Person of His Only Begotten Son. Read the 4 gospels anticipating instead of analyzing. When I acually read them almost non-stop before my return to the Catholic Church, I fell in love with the beautiful 2nd Person of the Blessed Trinity. I wish (I pray!) the same for you.How do you know?
No person can truthfully say that “All my thoughts and actions are not pre-programmed”, because no-one knows that.
I agree with you; I was just asking Was to get him to think about his arguments revolving (tediously) around God’s attributes, being all-knowing and all-powerful, yet respecting our free will.There can be no will of any kind, if we are nothing more than a selection of random chemical reactions and electrical impulses.
I’m looking for more of an evedential based approach, as opposed to unsubstantiated claims like this.God watches us without interfering with our choices, and He is the source of our life - our ability to move and to think, etc.
God guides us by the spirit. Jesus died for us…so our sins may be forgiven. Receiving the sacraments in life are the most amazing gifts to have. We are called by God through our sacrament of babtism.
So, the spirit is in us…and this is how we are guided by the will of God. So, we need to all know our own spirit.