Free will vs Omniscience

quote:

---

Well in a grand cosmic sense, God is responsible for everything. The only question left is whether or not we have free wI’ll

---

Free will is a rather slippery term with more than one meaning. The real question is to what extent God has predetermined our choices. If God has done that, then God has the primary responsibility even if we have some form of free will.

PaulK writes: The real question is to what extent God has predetermined our choices.

Agreed. jar has successfully argued that a God Who foreknowingly damns us is evil. I would argue that such type of predetermination is wrong. God does not determine our destiny. We do. God is only responsible in that He allowed two possible destinies.
We have limited free will only in that we cannot freely choose a third destiny, for example.

However, if God chooses to create a particular universe, knowing in advance everything that will happen in it (including all the choices made by the inhabitants) then God has predetermined everything that will happen in that universe. That is the essential point being argued.

OK, but its a nonsensical argument to be made by us IF in fact we seek no relationship with this God. God is gonna do what He is goona do and we have no power to change it. If we in fact have free will (which one could argue is desireable) it wont happen automatically without encountering and relating to this God. I would argue that this reality alone is not irrelevant. Comments?

Phat writes: No. But its different applying this argument to indict God.

How so? Seemingly you have higher moral values than your god.

Perhaps He never should have created humans at all then....according to your logic.

It's not MY logic Phat, it's just logic. That's the only moral position isn't it? If you do something with the certain knowledge that harm will come of it, you're doing something that is immoral.

OR more precisely he should have only created good humans. In which case one could argue that by allowing Satan to exist, God blew the whole deal BIG TIME

Well sure, that's what you've heard me argue many times. What's more he actually KNEW he would blow it. Weird huh?

But should we hold the initial creator/inventor of guns responsible for all deaths made by guns?

Well that's a difficult but human question. We can't seem to avoid inventing things that although we can't know specifically how they will lead to harm, we can know that harm must necessary follow. The nuclear bomb only had one purpose after all. Humans do this stuff because we're evolved apes that struggle to live with each other, but a God? No chance.

You've proven to live on a higher moral plane than the god you worship.

quote:

---

OK, but its a nonsensical argument to be made by us IF in fact we seek no relationship with this God

---

That is obviously wrong. Certainly we can look at theological beliefs and examine their implications, and if people are claiming that their theology is true it is something that should be done.

quote:

---

God is gonna do what He is goona do and we have no power to change it

---

What God actually does or does not do is not the point. The point is to examine the theology.

Phat writes: A message needs to be created/formed/defined by a human who speaks the language.

No, other social species understand the message too.

Phat writes: Messages dont just appear out of thin air.

They're passed down in the DNA. Don't be fooled by the word "message". The message is just a formalization of what we all know to be true.

Phat writes: ...but how on earth realistically could every Christian give away all that they had?

As I said, ask the disciples and the early church. They did it, didn't they? Or is hat another part of the Bible that you throw away?

Phat writes: Lets say that next Tuesday in N.America, everyone who professed to be a true Christian was ordered by Rome and the WCC to give away all that they had.

I keep telling you, nobody is "ordering" you to do it. It's voluntary. Most professing Christians, including you, wouldn't do it.

Phat writes: Now...who would they give it to?

Each other.

Phat writes: You dont know the first thing about what Jesus would say to you or I today.

Sure I do. Why would the message change?

Phat writes: All you do is quote a 1000 year old book.

You can spit on the Bible all you like but the fact is it's the only reference to Jesus that you have. Your "experiences" are worthless.

Phat writes: Your argument is designed only to expose Christian hypocrasy. You have no other motive nor reason to make it except to explain why you stopped believing.

Nonsense. I don't have to explain anything. My motivation is truth.

Phat writes: ringo writes: It's hard to understand why you pay any attention to scripture at all. Well I know why YOU do it. It happens to support your favorite axion: From Each According To His Ability To Each According To His Need.

That isn't my favorite axiom - but it is an axiom. As I said, every social species understands it. It's only human greed that tries to deny it.

Phat writes: According to what Jesus tells me, I am only to try and do my best every day and listen to His inner voice.

Jesus doesn't tell you anything. The voices in your head are manufactured by your own brain.

Phat writes: I am in no way told that His message is limited to the book nor that He is only a character within that book.

The voices in your head are lying to you. The brain has a habit of doing that.

Phat writes: And to whom is He responsible? If you say "to all of us" I will charge you with making up a God who is a product of your imagination.

I can guarantee that you will not back up that charge because you never do.

No, other social species understand the message too.

I have yet to see *any* animal species give all that it has (or even some) to other members of its species apart from perhaps its own biological offspring. Perhaps, however, you could argue that beavers give to the natural ecosystem through instinct but thats all you really have. Quit making silly arguments which are irrelevant to human arguments.

They're passed down in the DNA. Don't be fooled by the word "message". The message is just a formalization of what we all know to be true.

Truth through DNA? How convenient that it fits in with the lie you believe that no God is required.

(regarding giving all that one has to "the cause")

As I said, ask the disciples and the early church. They did it, didn't they? Or is hat another part of the Bible that you throw away?

Sorry to burst your Leftist bubble, but that will never happen. So I'm supposed to give my house to others? Where then will I live? Oh...someone will give me another house, you say? Lets just skip a step. Ownership of private property is a right which I support.

I keep telling you, nobody is "ordering" you to do it. It's voluntary. Most professing Christians, including you, wouldn't do it.

Newsflash: Most people in general wouldnt do it. Your Marxist fantasies fall on deaf ears. The global population will likely never be "equal" in terms of basic necessities for a long time. And I highly doubt that Jesus expects any different. Reality is what it is. As He Himself said, "The poor you will always have with you".

You can spit on the Bible all you like but the fact is it's the only reference to Jesus that you have. Your "experiences" are worthless.

Actually it is you who have been internally lied to.
Scripture says it better than I could:
Psalm 14:1 ESV--The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.

And Jesus is no Marxist liberal. (Granted He wouldnt approve of strict conservatism either)

I did say the questions were rhetorical.

Libet's results only indicate that there is something in the human nervous system analogous to pipelining in computer design.

About the same as any other theology.

May She ever be there where you cannot see.

Vegnautic Scripture | pink unicorn

But we tend not to pay attention to that which wants to hide from us.

Phat writes: In other words, Paul is charging that God does not get to change His mind and play back the tape but that PaulK does hypothetically get to change his own mind and thus have a perfect free will which is unencumbered by God knowing the decisions after the fact. Does that make sense?

No, it doesn't make sense.

It's a playback of a recording.
No one is "actually making any decisions at all."
It's impossible for anyone (God or human) to "change their mind" during the playback because... it's just a playback.

That's like contemplating "well, what if he wants to say other words?" during the 100,000'th copy made of an original Michael Jackson song.

He can't change his words in the recording because it's a recording - there's no one actually "singing the song live" in the sense that they're choosing their words again.

But PaulK usually has some sort of logical reasoning behind his issues.
I doubt that he's concerned about "getting to change his own mind" - I assume he's fine understanding that this is a hypothetical situation we're talking about and isn't taking it personally.

I just think I'm not explaining it right, or he's not understanding, or both.
Which isn't an "I'm right and PaulK's wrong" or "PaulK's right and I'm wrong" kind of thing... just an issue with communication and language and understanding.

Phat writes: I have yet to see *any* animal species give all that it has (or even some) to other members of its species apart from perhaps its own biological offspring.

Bees.

Phat writes: ringo writes: As I said, ask the disciples and the early church. They did it, didn't they? Or is hat another part of the Bible that you throw away? Sorry to burst your Leftist bubble, but that will never happen.

But it DID happen, didn't it? Or is that another part of the Bilble that you throw away?

Phat writes: Your Marxist fantasies fall on deaf ears.

Learn what Marxism is.

And it DOES happen today among the Hutterites, for example, as well as many monastic communities in several religions.

Phat writes: So I'm supposed to give my house to others? Where then will I live?

There are houses now, aren't there? People will live in the houses.

Read the Book of Acts.

Phat writes: Newsflash: Most people in general wouldnt do it.

Again, the message is for people who supposedly believe in Jesus.

Phat writes: As He Himself said, "The poor you will always have with you".

He didn't say they would always be the same poor.

Phat writes: Scripture says it better than I could: Psalm 14:1 ESV--The fool says in his heart, “There is no God.” They are corrupt, they do abominable deeds; there is none who does good.

You're the one who denies what Jesus said.

Phat writes: And Jesus is no Marxist liberal.

The Jesus in the Bible most certainly WAS a liberal. The Jesus that you made up in your head is is a right-wing nut like you.