Why / how would God providing compelling evidence of his existence remove our free will?

[Robertanthony]

The case against free will in general is that we are all the sum of our DNA and our experiences for each moment since we were able to experience anything. That includes the type of parenting we were given. That includes the type of neighborhood we were brought up in. That includes the friends and associates we’ve been associating with all our lives. That includes the media we’ve been consuming. Basically everything. And the key is, none of these factors were/are of our choosing. So while the illusion of free will remains compelling - it simply doesn’t have a place in this framework. There is no extra factor that allows you the potential to author your own actions.

Determinism. As someone who was dealt a tough hand in life in various ways, i can attest that what you’ve stated indeed plays a crucial rule in shaping who I am. However, even amidst my tough circumstances, I never lost my free-will. For years I decided to give up and to remain in a catatonic position of anger, rage, bitterness, hate, and rebellion. I decided to wallow in those negative feelings just like I decided to snap out of it, try another job where it took a LONG time to feel relatively comfortable, I exercised my free-will by deciding to hang in there.
When a Catholic is asked to renounce his Faith or be beheaded, he/she exercises his free-will one way or the other. Free-will doesn't mean easy or without constraint or pressure. If you've been told from the get go that you're worthless and will never amount to much, it's free-will that makes you think that perhaps what you've been told all these years was not true, and that just maybe you're worthwhile.

 

[ASimon]

Determinism. As someone who was dealt a tough hand in life in various ways, i can attest that what you’ve stated indeed plays a crucial rule in shaping who I am. However, even amidst my tough circumstances, I never lost my free-will. For years I decided to give up and to remain in a catatonic position of anger, rage, bitterness, hate, and rebellion. I decided to wallow in those negative feelings just like I decided to snap out of it, try another job where it took a LONG time to feel relatively comfortable, I exercised my free-will by deciding to hang in there.

When a Catholic is asked to renounce his Faith or be beheaded, he/she exercises his free-will one way or the other. Free-will doesn't mean easy or without constraint or pressure. If you've been told from the get go that you're worthless and will never amount to much, it's free-will that makes you think that perhaps what you've been told all these years was not true, and that just maybe you're worthwhile.

I can understand where you’re coming from. Frankly, if the morality question isn’t ultimately the bedrock issue of the the belief vs. unbelief dialogues, then that issue might be the free will question. I have no illusions that this will be something the faithful will be eager to give up, and I can only imagine how atheists will be caricatured in the coming years and decades.

I can only repeat my point. While it’s forever tempting to give oneself credit for exercising one’s free will to behave nobly, the entire concept is a non-starter, both philosophically and neuro-scientifically. To behave nobly, to understand the value of it, you would need to have it modeled for you at some point in your life. Further, the negative consequences of leading a bitter, angry existence would have to have been made plain to you. If neither had ever been the case for you, your ultimate change in attitude or behavior would’ve been an impossibility (Even if you had free will, why would you have made any changes in your life if you had never been given a compelling reason to do so?).

The impulses that ultimately proved to affect a positive change in your attitude and behavior are, at bottom, the same sort of impulses that compel another person in a similar situation to not make any changes. You were blessed (if you like) with the right combination of nature and nurture to eventually know when enough was enough.

 

[Perplexity]

I seem to be looking at this differently. Perhaps there can be debate over whether the Christian God would be ok with revealing himself in the specified manner because you have to sift through what’s been revealed about him. But, there’s so such analogue with the God of Theism.

It seems to me that Theism is a core belief of Christianity, Judaism, and Islam. That is, these major religions supervene on Theism.

So, if you can show that God would likely reveal himself to everyone given Theism, then we have a fairly good case against God’s existence, and by extension against the existence of the Christian, Jewish and Islamic God.

That said, it’s unclear what notion of ‘free-will’ we should adopt when analyzing Christianity:

“St. Augustine and others urged most admirably against the Pelagians that, if the possibility of deflection from good belonged to the essence or perfection of liberty, then God, Jesus Christ, and the angels and saints, who have not this power, would have no liberty at all, or would have less liberty than man has in his state of pilgrimage and imperfection. This subject is often discussed by the Angelic Doctor in his demonstration that the possibility of sinning is not freedom, but slavery.” - Leo XIII, Libertas Praestantissimum

To me, this suggests that true liberty of the will consists in choosing the good, which is what would happen if God revealed himself to everyone.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I’ve heard it said many times that God cannot provide compelling evidence for people to believe he exists as it would remove our free will. But as yet I’ve not found any solid reasoning the statement. It seems to simply be stated as a brute fact.

I currently see no reason why this would be the case. Even stranger (to me) given that this seems to be considered to be a brute fact is that it seems to also be accepted that God in fact CAN sometimes provide compelling evidence of his existence and yet NOT remove the free will of the person or group of people.

If anyone has a solid explanation for the reasoning behind this I’d be very grateful.

Thanks

Its simple to understand…

1. The only way there could be evidence is if the evidence was concrete.
2. If the evidence was concrete…man would continuously appeal the natural order of consequence for special considerations.( appeal to whatever the source or nature of concrete evidence.
3. Physical survival by its very nature is over-whelming. So over whelming it destroys our physical reality.
4. If the appeal to the concrete evidence in Gods existence was not an appeal for a break in the order of consequence for special favors…it would be an appeal to cease to exist and go into the lovely paradise…and wander about with no worry and fun times every day.
5. Now we have only one possible way to live in a noble self determined way showing individualism and thus a specific or unique value in the human becoming process or life.( where God is known in a concrete way)
   Accept and bear somewhat with submission the difficult life…fortitude makes for character.
   Although the condition is not empty handed in implicating the whole growing process.
6. The fact that a very clear concrete path to the existence of God does not exist in a material sense …makes it much easier to self excuse error. You thus have a greater position in which to self forgive.
7. Without a mechanism to recognize error as excusable, there is no great momentum to grow…allowing for…the becoming process. So basically, God if there is one which I’m pretty sure there would be knows all about the required well tempered pace for growth.
   So its not a matter of free will…its a matter for balance in imperfection allowing for progress

 

[Candide_West]

Its simple to understand…

1. The only way there could be evidence is if the evidence was concrete.

Not quite sure what you mean here, but I think that your use of the word concrete is the same as my use of “compelling”.

*2) If the evidence was concrete…man would continuously appeal the natural order of consequence for special considerations.( appeal to whatever the source or nature of concrete * evidence.

Does this mean asking God for Devine intervention? If yes, then plenty of people do so anyway so this would not be a major change. You seem to be saying that it would increase the number of theists and therefore increase the number of prayers. I think you’re probably right in this.

*3) Physical survival by its very nature is over-whelming. So over whelming it destroys our physical reality.

? I’m not sure I understand. I don’t find my own survival overwhelming, I am a member of a species which is well adapted to survive on earth. How would this fact destroy my “physical reality”?

*4) If the appeal to the concrete evidence in Gods existence was not an appeal for a break in the order of consequence for special favors…it would be an appeal to cease to exist and go into the lovely paradise…and wander about with no worry and fun times every day.

? I don’t suppose the prayers would be all that different from those being made currently by those theists who are entirely convinced that a God exists… There’d just be more of them.*

*5) Now we have only one possible way to live in a noble self determined way showing individualism and thus a specific or unique value in the human becoming process or life.( where God is known in a concrete way)
Accept and bear somewhat with submission the difficult life…fortitude makes for character.
Although the condition is not empty handed in implicating the whole growing process.

sounds reasonable, and of course it would be far easier to bear such conditions without falling into sin if you are sure that there is a reason to do so, something worth fighting for.*

*6) The fact that a very clear concrete path to the existence of God does not exist in a material sense …makes it much easier to self excuse error. You thus have a greater position in which to self forgive.

I’m afraid you lost me here, are you saying that not knowing whether or not a God exists makes it easier to let yourself get away with committing sins?*

*7) Without a mechanism to recognize error as excusable, there is no great momentum to grow…allowing for…the becoming process. *So basically, God if there is one which I’m pretty sure there would be knows all about the required well tempered pace for growth.

Surely God could just give some general guidelines and tell us that some errors are excusable?*

*So its not a matter of free will…its a matter for balance in imperfection allowing for progress

Ok, to clarify are you saying that if God did provide compelling evidence for his existence then we’d still retain our free will ?*

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Candide West;9038909]Not quite sure what you mean here, but I think that your use of the word concrete is the same as my use of “compelling”.

FS…concrete for example God was the aurora borealis and once every 100 yrs it was made perfectly clear. IOW…solid proof

CW
Does this mean asking God for Devine intervention? If yes, then plenty of people do so anyway so this would not be a major change. You seem to be saying that it would increase the number of theists and therefore increase the number of prayers. I think you’re probably right in this.

FS…no question about it, people would forget each other and wind up fixated on the location of the concrete evidence, praying for recognition ect ect… It would be a different world with less individual value possible… ( charity would be lessened due to a diminished social need …

CW
? I’m not sure I understand. I don’t find my own survival overwhelming, I am a member of a species which is well adapted to survive on earth. How would this fact destroy my “physical reality”?

FS
… Death destroys the physical reality and is caused by an overwhelming of disorder which cannot be rescued in biological repair. Pain overwhelms and kills the human as the dis-order itself overwhelms the order within healthy operations …So the reason I added this to the equation was to outline the emphasis of normal need in survival , showing that knowing this concrete God was there…will not interrupt in a large way an interest in God himself…we need to have a look at the mindset in this from a prospective of need to speculate.

CW
? I don’t suppose the prayers would be all that different from those being made currently by those theists who are entirely convinced that a God exists… There’d just be more of them.*

FS…Well …good point but…I think this may go into another area again with respects to the nature of momentum in the prayers…praise-peace vrs plead…its interesting in of itself.

CW
sounds reasonable, and of course it would be far easier to bear such conditions without falling into sin if you are sure that there is a reason to do so, something worth fighting for.*

FS…yes and an easier bear in fortitude does remove a good deal of understood self value including a few other consequential implications

CW
I’m afraid you lost me here, are you saying that not knowing whether or not a God exists makes it easier to let yourself get away with committing sins?*

FS
Glad you caught that…this is my chief point. Knowing for a solid physical material fact that God exists…demands a solid physical material representation in our materialistic natured behavior in survival as human. Therefore we would still make mistakes but have no material excuse because we know materially God exists and would be somewhat forced to bite the bullet in persevering…biting the bullet is not growth by experience…its a dictatorship…a robot existence…no individual value by self examination in the interior…A blank soul . With no excuse in order to recognize a viable weakness, the process of reconciliation becomes tainted, the growth toward striving to improve with required experience for reflection is diminished considerably

CD
Surely God could just give some general guidelines and tell us that some errors are excusable?*

FS…Good question…he already has in natural law, so I really think much more elaboration would be spoon feeding…and with the added presence, more like a baby sitter…I think since I clarified directly above…the idea in this observation may change a little

CD
Ok, to clarify are you saying that if God did provide compelling evidence for his existence then we’d still retain our free will ?

FS…well I think we would have our free will no doubt, but the life experience would be watered down quite a bit…try this…what if everything was exactly as it is but…nature was impervious to all indulgence, we all lived to 95 regardless of un-natural lifestyles and abusive insults to order in society and ourselves. In this example there is no real understanding in the creation of an offence that is ok or not ok. Nature obliges with the deceitful ect ect and gives great peace to all. Now we have even less evidence of a God…so the opinion here is that the reality we live in is balanced perfectly for an entire race of human progress…no way is it perfect individually for all…how could it, there would be no point in even talking to anyone…/.there would be nothing to gain In a bit of a rush here …on the go and these were great comments to opinion so wanted to show a good reply…some of above may need clarification…bit I think in general fairly close to my particular approach on this interesting idea;.

 

[FurtherSuntime]

I was thinking on this today and feel above comment is in-complete. Was also rushed little as mentioned… My sense is that a question like this cannot have an answer which seals an understanding of any real unanimously constructive, end.

Everyone is very different. The God experience cannot be put in a box and transported into another playing feild I don’t think, not for all in support of any usable answer .

Although …the question does raise many dynamics in the spiritual understandings, so there is a value, but I’m thinking those areas could be surfaced in a more direct way. I just feel a little uncomfortable with any kind of assertion with respect’s to this. Theres just too much involved…the only way that would make sense I think is an exact situation in one individual life for self reflection to surface a little awareness in comprehensions and so on.

In truth , any answer to the question which is more then very very general could easily be torpedoed by an assortment of people with specific history’s and so forth. There is just so much involved. I’m a little un-easy with blanket ideas on this one and wanted to communicate a very general reply So I don’t want to get into some argumentative, for something so impossible to “fully” conceive.

 

[Candide_West]

FS… IOW…solid proof

Ok, yep same meaning.*

FS…no question about it, people would forget each other and wind up fixated on the location of the concrete evidence, praying for recognition ect ect… It would be a different world with less individual value possible… ( charity would be lessened due to a diminished social need …

But surely to a lesser extent than those people who are currently given compelling evidence? After all, part of the reason they get so fixated on it is that it is rare (not many people have such direct experiences). If everyone had some kind of direct compelling experience (not necessarily in the same place or time) I see no reason for this to cause fixation or idolatry.

FS
… Death destroys the physical reality and is caused by an overwhelming *of disorder which cannot be rescued in biological repair. Pain overwhelms and kills the human as the dis-order itself overwhelms the order within healthy operations …So the reason I added this to the equation was to outline the emphasis of normal need in survival , showing that knowing this concrete God was there…will not interrupt in a large way an interest in God himself…we need to have a look at the mindset in this from a prospective of need to speculate.

Ok, but this doesn’t seem problematic.

FS…Well …good point but…I think this may go into another area again with respects to the nature of momentum in the prayers…praise-peace vrs plead…its interesting in of itself.

Agreed. Again this doesn’t seem problematic.*

CW
sounds reasonable, and of course it would be far easier to bear such conditions without falling into sin if you are sure that there is a reason to do so, something worth fighting for.*

FS…yes and an easier bear in fortitude does remove a good deal of understood self value including a few other consequential implications

Understood, but at least everyone would have a fighting chance. They would all know there was something to fight for and a reason to do so. I find it difficult to justify that hopelessness due to lack of knowledge is a preferable state.*

FS
Glad you caught that…this is my chief point. * Knowing for a solid physical material fact that God exists…demands a solid physical material representation in our materialistic natured behavior in survival as human. Therefore we would still make mistakes but have no material excuse because we know materially God exists and would be somewhat forced to bite the bullet in persevering…biting the bullet is not growth by experience…its a dictatorship…a robot existence…no individual value by self examination in the interior…A blank soul . With no excuse in order to recognize a viable weakness, the process of reconciliation becomes tainted, the growth toward striving to improve with required experience for reflection is diminished considerably

Hmmm, I’m still not sure I’m with you here. Granted that knowing God exists would mean that we’d (presumably) strive to grow and do the right thing because we know it’s the right thing and what God wants. So we wouldn’t be doing it for our own selfish ends. This seems to me to be better, not worse.

Also, why does this NOT apply to those people who have been given compelling evidence? Surely if your logic holds true then God by revealing himself has stunted their growth and tainted their reconciliation?*

FS…Good question…he already has in natural law, so I really think much more elaboration would be spoon feeding…and with the added presence, more like a baby sitter…I think since I clarified directly above…the idea in this observation may change a little

Unfortunately though natural law seems wildly unreliable as a set of moral guidelines. Just think of the horrors which have been justified just within a Christian moral framework throughout history. Including slavery, torture and genocide, now most Catholics consider these things to be against natural law. In the past most people thought confession under torture followed by burning at the stake was entirely morally justified. So our record at reading “natural law” is pretty very unreliable.*

Surely god could come up with something which would deliver the message more reliably?*

FS…well I think we would have our free will no doubt, but the life experience would be watered down quite a bit…try this…what if everything was exactly as it is but…nature was impervious to all indulgence, we all lived to 95 regardless of un-natural lifestyles and abusive insults to order in society and ourselves. *In this example there is no real understanding in the creation of an offence that is ok or not ok. Nature obliges with the deceitful ect ect and gives great peace to all. *Now we have even less evidence of a God…so the opinion here is that the reality we live in is balanced perfectly for an entire race of human progress…no way is it perfect individually for all…how could it, there would be no point in even talking to anyone…/.there would be *nothing to gain *In a bit of a rush here …on the go and these were great comments to opinion so wanted to show a good reply…some of above may need clarification…bit I think in general fairly close to my particular approach on this interesting idea;.

Fair enough, I’m not sure I agree, I think there must be ways in which God could make his presence know to each of us without Nannying us. But the key point is that it wouldn’t remove free will. There seems to be general agreement on this thread to that effect.*

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Ok, yep same meaning.*

But surely to a lesser extent than those people who are currently given compelling evidence? After all, part of the reason they get so fixated on it is that it is rare (not many people have such direct experiences). If everyone had some kind of direct compelling experience (not necessarily in the same place or time) I see no reason for this to cause fixation or idolatry.

Ok, but this doesn’t seem problematic.

Agreed. Again this doesn’t seem problematic.*

Understood, but at least everyone would have a fighting chance. They would all know there was something to fight for and a reason to do so. I find it difficult to justify that hopelessness due to lack of knowledge is a preferable state.*

Hmmm, I’m still not sure I’m with you here. Granted that knowing God exists would mean that we’d (presumably) strive to grow and do the right thing because we know it’s the right thing and what God wants. So we wouldn’t be doing it for our own selfish ends. This seems to me to be better, not worse.

Also, why does this NOT apply to those people who have been given compelling evidence? Surely if your logic holds true then God by revealing himself has stunted their growth and tainted their reconciliation?*

Unfortunately though natural law seems wildly unreliable as a set of moral guidelines. Just think of the horrors which have been justified just within a Christian moral framework throughout history. Including slavery, torture and genocide, now most Catholics consider these things to be against natural law. In the past most people thought confession under torture followed by burning at the stake was entirely morally justified. So our record at reading “natural law” is pretty very unreliable.*

Surely god could come up with something which would deliver the message more reliably?*

Fair enough, I’m not sure I agree, I think there must be ways in which God could make his presence know to each of us without Nannying us. But the key point is that it wouldn’t remove free will. There seems to be general agreement on this thread to that effect.*

Above its mentioned that the idea would give man a fighting chance. My opinion on how this concrete knowledge of God is understood, is the knowledge would be no different then understanding an infinite holiday to Hawaii once life was over. In other words life here, would not be recognized as even real, a hold your breath until the holiday begins. So I don’t see where a fight, conflict or challenge would find a proper and necessary grounding for the momentum to even exist. The agreed God presence would be like a farmer in the sky, maintaining his herd once every 100 yrs to insure they do not wind up knocking each other off for food and so forth.
There would be no need for greed as insecurity in individual worth would not exist. Once greed and bazaar distribution of wealth is removed, for all time, we have an entirely different evolving human…no mistakes because there is no need to acquire a replacement for self worth, missing in the comprehension of character or soul value.

Because the anticipated vacation would take over true longing the initiative to use reason to explore who we are , where we came from, would also be eliminated…we know exactly all that is necessary, no doubt about it

The always was event would also remove initiative to flourish, prosper economically, electricity…ect ect…what would be the need…in the need…for invention? Thus we would be still in the jungle or not far from it, laying flowers at the site, refusing to use the enormity of reason as a gift for development…may as well be slightly conscious as a dolphin or one of those monkeys…the faculty has no need for exercise…other then cold…but then why get warm? it would prolong the time waiting for the vacation.

so I’m trying to show that the human product your using is inconsistent I think with the product that such an event would produce over time…whether it always was…or in time after installation…

as well people who would be eccentric or what have you would be going to the site and eliminating themselves…in fact if there was no clear directive imposing a rule on this…I believe there would be elimination centers all about the location…start your vacation today and so on…don’t forget the gravity of the situation…the imaginary idea introduced creates “man eternal” interrupted by a short guaranteed metamorphosis . So I guess the idea needs a few perimeters, I don’t know if I can think of any for now but I’m sure there would be a few to get us out of the mess I just created…free will would exist but relative to the new product.

 

[Charlemagne_II]

Candide

Do you remember why Moses’ hair turned white?

Well, God’s compelling presence might remove free will in the similar sense that Hitler’s compelling presence removed the free will of Germans. Shock and Awe! :bigyikes:

 

[Candide_West]

Above its mentioned that the idea would give man a fighting chance. My opinion on how this concrete knowledge of God is understood, is the knowledge would be no different then understanding an infinite holiday to Hawaii once life was over. In other words life here, would not be recognized as even real, a hold your breath until the holiday begins. So I don’t see where a fight, conflict or challenge would find a proper and necessary grounding for the momentum to even exist. The agreed God presence would be like a farmer in the sky, maintaining his herd once every 100 yrs to insure they do not wind up knocking each other off for food and so forth.
There would be no need for greed as insecurity in individual worth would not exist. Once greed and bazaar distribution of wealth is removed, for all time, we have an entirely different evolving human…no mistakes because there is no need to acquire a replacement for self worth, missing in the comprehension of character or soul value.

I think i disagree here. Have you ever been in a race or working incredibly hard towards something and you got exhausted trying and trying so hard and desperately to suceed but then you started to feel that you just couldn’t go on any more and you had to give up… then reminded yourself what it was all for and found it just gave you the energy or determination you need to keep going no matter how much harder it got?

That’s how I think of this, for those who have truly hard lives, the kind of lives I cannot even imagine from the softness of my home in a wealthy western country. They would have that something to work towards no matter how hard their lives got or how much life hurt.

Because the anticipated vacation would take over true longing the initiative to use reason to explore who we are , where we came from, would also be eliminated…we know exactly all that is necessary, no doubt about it

Why? We’d still only have this short life to discover everything we can about being human and being who we are. In fact the motivation would be even greater if God told us “whatever person you are when you die, that is the person you will be for all eternity” or something similar. I think that’d give me if anything a greater motivation to make the absolute best I could of myself and never give up trying to be better.

The always was event would also remove initiative to flourish, prosper economically, electricity…ect ect…what would be the need…in the need…for invention? Thus we would be still in the jungle or not far from it, laying flowers at the site, refusing to use the enormity of reason as a gift for development…may as well be slightly conscious as a dolphin or one of those monkeys…the faculty has no need for exercise…other then cold…but then why get warm? it would prolong the time waiting for the vacation.

Again, why?

Imagine you had decided you were going to change from your current job to one in a different company. Do you immediately stop working hard for your current company? If you move to a different city do you stop caring about the people in the place you moved away from? etc. The motivation would still be just as strong to care for our world and the young, after all they are going to have the world we leave them with to make the best of themselves that they can be. If anything I’d say that the motivation would be stronger if everyone knew God existed.

so I’m trying to show that the human product your using is inconsistent I think with the product that such an event would produce over time…whether it always was…or in time after installation…

I’m not sure I understand what you mean by “human product” here.

as well people who would be eccentric or what have you would be going to the site and eliminating themselves…in fact if there was no clear directive imposing a rule on this…I believe there would be elimination centers all about the location…start your vacation today and so on…don’t forget the gravity of the situation…the imaginary idea introduced creates “man eternal” interrupted by a short guaranteed metamorphosis . So I guess the idea needs a few perimeters, I don’t know if I can think of any for now but I’m sure there would be a few to get us out of the mess I just created…free will would exist but relative to the new product.

You appear to be talking about people committing suicide. I’m not sure what additional motivation this would introduce for people to kill themselves. Especially if the Catholic church has it right and suicide is a sin which will send you to hell anyway. I’ve not heard that there is a great trend in people who believe they have had direct experience of God committing suicide.

 

[tonyrey]

The case against free will in general is that we are all the sum of our DNA and our experiences for each moment since we were able to experience anything. That includes the type of parenting we were given. That includes the type of neighborhood we were brought up in. That includes the friends and associates we’ve been associating with all our lives. That includes the media we’ve been consuming. Basically everything. And the key is, none of these factors were/are of our choosing. So while the illusion of free will remains compelling - it simply doesn’t have a place in this framework. There is no extra factor that allows you the potential to author your own actions.

In that case you don’t author your own thoughts! You must be a robot…

That is what we would be like if we knew Big Brother is watching us day and night…

 

[FurtherSuntime]

Candide West;9043941]I think i disagree here. Have you ever been in a race or working incredibly hard towards something and you got exhausted trying and trying so hard and desperately to suceed but then you started to feel that you just couldn’t go on any more and you had to give up… then reminded yourself what it was all for and found it just gave you the energy or determination you need to keep going no matter how much harder it got? That’s how I think of this, for those who have truly hard lives, the kind of lives I cannot even imagine from the softness of my home in a wealthy western country. They would have that something to work towards no matter how hard their lives got or how much life hurt.

FS…

This is where we need more information about the imagined God in the sky. If the God in the sky simply emphasized that the race was to exist without confrontation with objective peace which is what the idea is in Christianity, the outcome would be a human race which basically set objective peace as a prime directive. Once that happens we have an entirely different individual as well social arm.

For example: as it is in our comprehensions, exploration and advance is in fact the prime directive in whole flourish momentum. In this momentum the race strives toward self understanding by advance in order to appease the un-disclosed reason for the reality of its existence. In short man can do nothing but try to improve in order to understand himself. With this truth, man is trying or striving to understand his consequential nature of how he came to be. This existing momentum also simultaneously address’s a need to grasp the nature of the cause for his existence.

Now because all this information would known in the Sky God…these pointed flourishing objectives are illogical as…prime directives. With this condition, all of the usual examples individually with respects to fighting for something in everything now have alternate base cause for emergence. So the determination individually which you speak to in my opinion, would be rooted in objective outside of known properties of flourish. This adjustment arranges an all together different circumstance for self appreciation in achievement. Ego could only be significant in the accomplishment toward the unification of man or peace. The above suggestion in the focus for unity would place a bias for unity.

We do not have a bias for unity in mankind at this present condition, we have a bias for flourish toward unity. I believe this observation would make a huge difference , its interesting because we know unity is all important but…recognize the jungle aspect of our environment including each other, animals and now space itself has replaced the hungry tiger…so I think I’m on target with this point.

The flourish quality present excuses or reasons the need for flourish in priority as…if were attacked by others, animal, virus, asteroid, earthquake and so on, we cannot accomplish the prime directive understanding and satisfying the reason for our existence, heavily and socially in an unconscious way I suppose pleasing the creator,…because we would know he is there and would look after things…it really is all about man trying to please God whether he likes it or not…theres no choice logically…if hes there in the sky…there is an assumption that if things were out of order in an un-satisfactory way…correction would certainly be provided…

Above is one of the reasons why people have a tough time quietly or otherwise not…inferring to themselves somehow in some way a devastation inflicted on themselves is Gods direct doing for a disordered response to behavior…not observations when another country gets torpedoed only self…there is an important distinction here… Anyway, I’m just plugging along here and responding freely and don’t believe the idea of a goal would hold too much simularity in reasons for the goal itself. The conditions we live with, dictate the reasons for our goals , they would completely change. Determination would be as found above toward a bias for unity…( opinion

CD
Why? We’d still only have this short life to discover everything we can about being human and being who we are. In fact the motivation would be even greater if God told us “whatever person you are when you die, that is the person you will be for all eternity” or something similar. I think that’d give me if anything a greater motivation to make the absolute best I could of myself and never give up trying to be better.

FS… Every single item including movement , reliability of the once every 100 yr knowledge we agreed to, would have a massive effect on the outcome of which we are speaking to…so all or at least perimeters need to be clarified for any guessing on this.The suggestion, whatever person who become when you die toss’s a whole new can of worms on this…its not a good idea to start a reduction process of something and when outcomes come about which do not suite taste provide a little seasoning. Reason being the seasoning changes all the outcome of developed reasoning any you gotta start from scratch .

When I say human product…I mean to say the outcome of the circumstance would shape a different person all together,…the human product would be completely different.
Everything has perimeters…gonna have a coffee, looks like a fairly decent day…if something is way off , thanks ahead for any notice.

I

 

[ASimon]

In that case you don’t author your own thoughts! You must be a robot…

Call it what you want. This is where the facts lead.

That is what we would be like if we knew Big Brother is watching us day and night…

No. You’d be a monotheist if you believed that.

 

[tonyrey]

*In that case you don’t author your own thoughts! You must be a robot… *

1. They are not facts but your opinions
2. If you don’t author your thoughts you are not responsible for them
3. If you are not responsible for your thoughts there is no reason to believe your conclusions are true
4. There are far more possibilities of being wrong than being right
5. Therefore your conclusions are far more likely to be false than true - if you are not responsible for them

That is what we would be like if we knew Big Brother is watching us day and night…

No. You’d be a monotheist if you believed that.

Precisely! That is the point I am making…

 

[kch86]

If anyone has a solid explanation for the reasoning behind this I’d be very grateful.

I’m glad God chooses not to reveal Himself most of the time because “blessed are they who did not see, and yet believed.” I may be slightly less morally culpable for the wrongs I commit in doubt, and the good things I do in faith and despite doubt have slightly greater value. This lack of knowledge only works out in my favour.

I personally think it’s more to do with culpability than free will. “Forgive them for they know not what they do.” If we could all see God clearly, we would know full well when what we’re doing is wrong and would be less likely to be forgiven, or at least incur a greater penalty for our misdeeds.

Jesus revealed Himself to the twelve Apostles and I don’t believe that their free will was in any way taken away.

So I think the real reason God chooses not to make Himself fully known to us is for our own good, and not because it would somehow impede our free will, but so that we have an excuse to be forgiven - we cannot commit mortal sin without full knowledge.

God has revealed himself just enough so that we can know Him, but not enough so as to take away our invincible ignorance.

Angels probably look in horror at our sins and lack of faith, but we are to some extent excused because unlike them, we do not fully know God and the gravity of our actions. However, mankind’s stain of Original Sin is such that even if we did know God fully, we would probably still go against the will of our Creator.

I think it is this tendency towards sin in spite of full knowledge that is the reason why God chooses to remain partly concealed. We can see that until our first parents, Adam and Eve committed the Original Sin, God had no problem with making Himself known to them.

Well, those are my thoughts on the matter as a layman. I believe they do make sense, but theological reasoning would of course be much better.

 

[ASimon]

1. They are not facts but your opinions
2. If you don’t author your thoughts you are not responsible for them
3. If you are not responsible for your thoughts there is no reason to believe your conclusions are true

Sure they’re are. These conclusions are derived from observable reality, and what we know of how the human brain works. They would be true regardless of whether you knew them or not, and certainly regardless of whether you had free will or not.

The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not.

Precisely! That is the point I am making…

You refer to your God as “Big Brother?” And you mean it as a term of endearment? That’s interesting. Have you ever actually read 1984?

 

[tonyrey]

1. They are not facts but your opinions

You are assuming thoughts are produced by your brain and that your brain is the **sole factor **involved in reasoning - as if the mind is an illusion. Your materialism is an unproven hypothesis which was abandoned by philosophers when logical positivism failed to account for the verification principle.

They would be true regardless of whether you knew them or not, and certainly regardless of whether you had free will or not.

An unsubstantiated assertion which fails to explain how and why your conclusions would be true whether you knew them or not…

The universe is the way it is, whether we like it or not.

Irrelevant.

You refer to your God as “Big Brother?” And you mean it as a term of endearment? That’s interesting.

It is simply intended to ram home the point that you would be aware that your most secret thoughts and desires are observed twenty-four hours a day seven days a week fifty-two weeks a year…

Have you ever actually read 1984?

I probably read it before you were born!

 

[ASimon]

You are assuming thoughts are produced by your brain and that your brain is the **sole factor **involved in reasoning - as if the mind is an illusion. Your materialism is an unproven hypothesis which was abandoned by philosophers when logical positivism failed to account for the verification principle.

This is what I’m assuming. Find me something else that produces thoughts, and further explain to me how your mind can function without a brain. Taking into account the sort of damage that can be done to your subjectivity, your “mind,” in the event of certain sorts of damage done to your brain.

Your mind, everything that makes you you, can be profoundly damaged if you damage the brain. This is frankly undeniable. Yet, religion insists that if you vaporize your brain, causing death, that your subjectivity will survive, fully formed.

 

[tonyrey]

You are assuming thoughts are produced

1. Can you detect your thoughts, intentions, choices, principles, priorities, values and decisions with your senses?
2. Can you get outside your mind?
3. Can you know the material world **directly **or do you infer its existence from your perceptions?
4. Do you perceive things in exactly the same way as anyone else?
5. If not how do you know what the real thing looks like?
6. Is there any evidence that the brain **knows **what it is doing?
7. How does the brain make decisions?

8.** Which part** of the brain makes decisions?

1. Can you control yourself or does the lump of tissue in your skull do everything for you?
2. What are you? A mindless body? An impotent spectator of events?