# It’s About Time, Part I



## Asath (Mar 12, 2012)

We’ve been recycling the same tired dogmas for so long now -- with nothing new added or learned or discussed – that perhaps it is time to begin the long process of deconstructing theology one part at a time, and holding it up to the light of day.  There are a lot of different topics and doctrines at hand, and taking them all on in one thread would be unwieldy as well as chaotic, so I’ve chosen to start here – the doctrine of free-will.

Some will say that this is starting in the middle, and they would be correct.  The development of this doctrine, and this particular defense of belief took many centuries for Theistic theology to formulate, and the reasons why this doctrine arose will later be addressed, but for the purposes of this thread, it seems like as good a place as any to begin the thought process . . . 

The idea that a God gave his humanity free-will is illogical in the extreme, and does not argue in favor of a theology that includes an Omnipotent God.

If the God of theology is indeed all-knowing, then how can this gift (or curse) of free-will be so potent as to thwart all of this God’s good purposes?  If a man can choose, but this choice is also a condition that is Given to him, then the choice itself is pre-ordained, and is also Given.  But if this choice to ‘stray’ from the ‘True’ path is also allowed in a God Ordered universe, then God is no longer benevolent or omnipotent, and routinely sees His plans and mandates countermanded by men.  That is to say – by chance, rather than by design. 

The theological argument negates itself through this doctrine.  We cannot at once be a manifestation of God, and also be made in such a way as to do evil – if God is as has been described.  Whence comes the evil?  Out of men, and out of their choices.  But who Gave them those choices, in the theological view?  If we are, in fact, as He has made us, then how can He complain?

The doctrine of a Given free-will was meant to answer the question – “Why, in a God ordered universe, is there evil?”  The escape from the dilemma posed by this question was to separate us from this God, by making Him indifferent, and making US the authors of our own lives.  And thus the authors of evil.  But this portrays a God that is fundamentally unjust.  Also, if one does evil, and ‘repents’ properly, theology tells us, you will be rewarded equally with those who do good – so both the good and the bad are rewarded, based solely on their ultimate fealty to the God of this dogma.  That is unjust, by any view.


----------



## 1gr8bldr (Mar 13, 2012)

Hello Asath, I think I lean the other way but do not know how to convey that thought. I look foward to observing your thread so that it may spur me into solidifying my own views


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> We’ve been recycling the same tired dogmas for so long now -- with nothing new added or learned or discussed –



... and "free will" is the topic you choose to remedy the situation?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 13, 2012)

I would have started with reincarnation


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

From what I've seen, the believer's final answer will be "I don't know how it works but God does and that's good enough for me".  It's a resolution that is weak as water and a darn shame for people capable of reason to accept.  

Please note the admonishment.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

Asath, I think you will find many Calvinists agreeing with many of your points, but since I am a "free-will hippy" Christian, I can only speak for myself.......




Asath said:


> The idea that a God gave his humanity free-will is illogical in the extreme, and does not argue in favor of a theology that includes an Omnipotent God..




If we are wanting to deconstruct anything we must agree on terms, yes?  "Illogical to the extreme" is an opinion any way it is viewed, and cannot be a position to argue from.  

Omnipotent, being "all knowing" must be defined, and in my perspective could be defined as the things which are knowable....that is very important to the conversation.



Asath said:


> If a man can choose, but this choice is also a condition that is Given to him, then the choice itself is pre-ordained, and is also Given. .



You give your kid a menu at O'Charleys, and ask him / her to choose between the mac and cheese and the chicken tenders.  The only thing you have preordained is the meal....which is "good" because we need food.  You did not preordain the choice.   If the kid chokes on the chicken tenders, it is not your fault for handing him the menu. 




Asath said:


> But if this choice to ‘stray’ from the ‘True’ path is also allowed in a God Ordered universe, then God is no longer benevolent or omnipotent, and routinely sees His plans and mandates countermanded by men.  That is to say – by chance, rather than by design. .



Again, you have inserted opinion in a debate which is meant to deconstruct a theology.  By what basis have you determined that such action can neither be benevolent or omnipotent?  I would agree with the thought, but again, it is an opinion.  My perspective does not include a pre-ordained path.




Asath said:


> We cannot at once be a manifestation of God, and also be made in such a way as to do evil – if God is as has been described.



In this case, you must define the broad term "manifestation of God" in order to assert whether what you are saying is true.  In doing so, please include your basis.



Asath said:


> Whence comes the evil?  Out of men, and out of their choices.  But who Gave them those choices, in the theological view?  If we are, in fact, as He has made us, then how can He complain?.



Three questions (disregarding second sentence):
1. Good being the natural counter to evil, evil must exist for good to exist.  Man can and does choose either.
2. Natural conditions of existence.
3. We are not, as we choose evil.  I think Calvinists and free-willers will agree that man was not made to choose evil.  My thoughts peel off frmo the mainstream from there, but I do not wish to pursue that rabbit trail at this time.




Asath said:


> The doctrine of a Given free-will was meant to answer the question – “Why, in a God ordered universe, is there evil?”  The escape from the dilemma posed by this question was to separate us from this God, by making Him indifferent, and making US the authors of our own lives.  And thus the authors of evil.  But this portrays a God that is fundamentally unjust.  Also, if one does evil, and ‘repents’ properly, theology tells us, you will be rewarded equally with those who do good – so both the good and the bad are rewarded, based solely on their ultimate fealty to the God of this dogma.  That is unjust, by any view.



Again, what is your basis for unjust.  One might contend that unjust would be creating the evil, then punishing it.  If evil is a natural condition of existence, as a counterbalnce to good (which good is not good if there is no evil, it simply is), then one must have a choice in the matter if there is "rewards" or "punishments" involved, I think.

As to the rest, the word repent incorporates a lot more than simply saying "oops."  It is a literal turning away from evil.  So, good is the only thing rewarded because evil has been abolished in where repentence exists.

How's that for a start?


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Asath, I think you will find many Calvinists agreeing with many of your points, but since I am a "free-will hippy" Christian, I can only speak for myself.......
> 
> 
> 
> ...



I felt like saying "booyaah" after that post.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 13, 2012)

Freewill or will worshiping is a form of idolatry. It is worshiping self. It is direct rebellion towards a Sovereign God. Man, by nature, will not and can not bow to a Sovereign God.

I have heard many say "Yes, God is sovereign, but". And after "but" they will endeavor to strip God of his sovereignty.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Freewill or will worshiping is a form of idolatry. It is worshiping self. It is direct rebellion towards a Sovereign God. Man, by nature, will not and can not bow to a Sovereign God.
> 
> I have heard many say "Yes, God is sovereign, but". And after "but" they will endeavor to strip God of his sovereignty.



I figured you might disagree with me


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Freewill or will worshiping is a form of idolatry. It is worshiping self. It is direct rebellion towards a Sovereign God.



C'mon.


----------



## Four (Mar 13, 2012)

Shouldn't we start at the beginning, the beginning of all theology,  not just judao christian, and define what a god or gods are?

Much like you would define a cat, or a tree, they have qualities, colors sounds compositions, attributes, etc.

First, in order to prove or disprove that such a thing exists, or is even possible to exist, we must establish a definition of such a thing, since we have nothing to point to as we could a tree or a cat.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> C'mon.



I liken freewillism to legalism. The worship of self.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I liken freewillism to legalism.



I do not.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I do not.



And I understand that. You do not consider them to be false religion as I do. False religion typically has a high view of man, a demeaning view of God and gives man something to do to get, keep, earn God's favor upon them.


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> You do not consider them to be false religion as I do.



Correct.




gemcgrew said:


> False religion typically has a high view of man ...



Some religion has too low a view of man.




gemcgrew said:


> ... gives man something to do to get, keep, earn God's favor upon them.



As a card-carrying member of the Free Will Society (Dunwoody chapter), I don't believe there's anything I can do to get, keep, or earn God's favor.


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> Correct.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wooooo, can I join? 

I live in Barnesville, GA, is there already a chapter there or am I going to have to start one?


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> Wooooo, can I join?
> 
> I live in Barnesville, GA, is there already a chapter there or am I going to have to start one?



You can be the founding member.  We at FWS headquarters have had our eyes on Barnesville for some time now.  We know that once Barnesville climbs aboard the "free will train", the rest of Georgia will soon follow.  Then, the South will fall.  Then, America.  And then ... THE WORLD.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> I don't believe there's anything I can do to get, keep, or earn God's favor.



Agreed


----------



## stringmusic (Mar 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> You can be the founding member.  We at FWS headquarters have had our eyes on Barnesville for some time now.  We know that once Barnesville climbs aboard the "free will train", the rest of Georgia will soon follow.  Then, the South will fall.  Then, America.  And then ... THE WORLD.


You crazy.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 13, 2012)

I go to my closet and try to decide if i'm going to wear the red shirt or the green shirt and i finally choose the red shirt and God knew I was going to pick the red shirt then I didn't have a choice. I decide to accept Jesus as my savior. If God knew I was going to do this millions of years ago then I didn't have a choice. I don't believe God knows what I will do. I believe in free will. It would be easy to debunk free will by saying, God knew what you were going to do but it was still your choice.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Freewill or will worshiping is a form of idolatry. It is worshiping self. It is direct rebellion towards a Sovereign God. Man, by nature, will not and can not bow to a Sovereign God.
> 
> I have heard many say "Yes, God is sovereign, but". And after "but" they will endeavor to strip God of his sovereignty.



So I can blame all my sins on God because I didn't have free will to commit them? And please don't try to convince me that not everyone sins, we all do. I just take the blame for my own actions.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

stringmusic said:


> You crazy.




He ain't right, is he?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I go to my closet and try to decide if i'm going to wear the red shirt or the green shirt and i finally choose the red shirt and God knew I was going to pick the red shirt then I didn't have a choice. I decide to accept Jesus as my savior. If God knew I was going to do this millions of years ago then I didn't have a choice. I don't believe God knows what I will do. I believe in free will. It would be easy to debunk free will by saying, God knew what you were going to do but it was still your choice.



Yeah and while He was creating, He created a buncha people He could send to a pit of fire, just for fun, because they never had a chance.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

centerpin fan said:


> As a card-carrying member of the Free Will Society (Dunwoody chapter), I don't believe there's anything I can do to get, keep, or earn God's favor.



Wait a sec., you live in Dunwoody and go to church in Hiram?!?!? 

Now that's commitment!


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

This thread is headed the way of "the elect" thread did, can't wait to see what then next 1000 posts bring.........


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Wait a sec., you live in Dunwoody and go to church in Hiram?!?!?
> 
> Now that's commitment!



Tell me about it.  And I used to live in Lawrenceville!


----------



## centerpin fan (Mar 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> He ain't right, is he?



Y'all have no idea.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I don't believe God knows what I will do.



And I believe that not only did He know it, He decreed it.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Yeah and while He was creating, He created a buncha people He could send to a pit of fire, just for fun, because they never had a chance.



Not for fun. For glory.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Not for fun. For glory.



How would He get glory out of that? He made them to burn, they had no choice...what glory is in that?


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> How would He get glory out of that? He made them to burn, they had no choice...what glory is in that?



We've already had this discussion. It is not my desire to convince you of anything. It would do neither of us any good.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!!  Slow down here!  I can't believe you all come in here talking about God and the Bible and stuff like everybody accepts it as true.   Please remember what sub-forum this is.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

Four said:


> Shouldn't we start at the beginning, the beginning of all theology,  not just judao christian, and define what a god or gods are?
> 
> Much like you would define a cat, or a tree, they have qualities, colors sounds compositions, attributes, etc.
> 
> First, in order to prove or disprove that such a thing exists, or is even possible to exist, we must establish a definition of such a thing, since we have nothing to point to as we could a tree or a cat.



I think this is a reasonable place to start.  Believers, do you think that you can talk about God as an abstract notion?


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Whoa, whoa, whoa!!!!  Slow down here!  I can't believe you all come in here talking about God and the Bible and stuff like everybody accepts it as true.   Please remember what sub-forum this is.



Sorry, I took your first post in this thread as an invitation.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Sorry, I took your first post in this thread as an invitation.



Please, join the discussion.  You will find that the people here will completely agree with your theology about predestination and omniscience.  If an omniscient, omnipotent being exists then there is no free will.  It's only logical.  Every atheist will agree with that.  It's only a few floors up that you will hear all this "He can suspend his super powers so that he doesn't know what will happen" or "He operates on different dimensions" or "He just wouldn't do that" or my personal favorite "I don't know how he does it but I just know that he does".   It's all jumping through hoops, but you know that.

The argument that you will get here is whether or not such a being exists and we can discuss that like adults.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> We've already had this discussion. It is not my desire to convince you of anything. It would do neither of us any good.



Hellloooo, you brought up glory. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't bring it up, okay? By bringing it up I assume it's up for debate.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Hellloooo, you brought up glory. If you don't want to discuss it, then don't bring it up, okay? By bringing it up I assume it's up for debate.



Only if you first make a rational argument for God.  This is not the place to assume that the Bible or God is true.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Please, join the discussion.  You will find that the people here will completely agree with your theology about predestination and omniscience.  If an omniscient, omnipotent being exists then there is no free will.  It's only logical.  Every atheist will agree with that.  It's only a few floors up that you will hear all this "He can suspend his super powers so that he doesn't know what will happen" or "He operates on different dimensions" or "He just wouldn't do that" or my personal favorite "I don't know how he does it but I just know that he does".   It's all jumping through hoops, but you know that.
> 
> The argument that you will get here is whether or not such a being exists and we can discuss that like adults.


I believe in free will but can see the logic in that line of thinking. I've struggled with that process for years. Most Christians believe in free will and predestination at the same time. It is very confusing. I wish I did believe in predestination. I wouldn't have to worry about anything, anymore, never again, not even my salvation. That being said, I don't have an answer nor can I explain it. I'll pray for insight but that will only work if one believes in free will!


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Believers, do you think that you can talk about God as an abstract notion?



Sure.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I believe in free will but can see the logic in that line of thinking. I've struggled with that process for years. Most Christians believe in free will and predestination at the same time. It is very confusing. I wish I did believe in predestination. I wouldn't have to worry about anything, anymore, never again, not even my salvation. That being said, I don't have an answer nor can I explain it. I'll pray for insight but that will only work if one believes in free will!



It is very confusing for me too, sometimes.

The way I look at it is....once I have turned my will over to God,(by being saved) then I'm predestined...and God knew that I would do that, not that He chose it for me against my will.

If I can manage to forego my free will, which of course is quite hard, then God will drive me. If I sin, that's my will, not God's will for me. So if I stay in God's will I'm covered, if I'm working in my own free will, I will usually fail.
When I'm working in my own free will, that doesn't mean that I've lost my salvation....it just means I'm working outside of God's will and usually I'll mess up.

I believe He knows what we will do, but He doesn't force us or choose for us what we will do.

There are some exceptions in the bible....Jonah, Moses, Paul that God used them regardless of their free will. But I don't think God forces or chooses the majority to abide by His will, unless we have already surrenedered to Him....otherwise, He chooses for no one to perish, we'd all be saved if it was all in God's will. And none of us would ever sin, if we didn't have free will.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I believe in free will but can see the logic in that line of thinking. I've struggled with that process for years. Most Christians believe in free will and predestination at the same time. It is very confusing. I wish I did believe in predestination. I wouldn't have to worry about anything, anymore, never again, not even my salvation. That being said, I don't have an answer nor can I explain it. I'll pray for insight but that will only work if one believes in free will!



And that's one of the big reasons I consider them batty.


----------



## Asath (Mar 13, 2012)

Four, and Dodger – as I said – I agree that perhaps a comprehensive deconstruction of theology ought to start at the beginning rather than in the middle, or perhaps anyplace else,  but there is a reason why I chose this place to start.

And yeah, I rather expected things to descend quickly into posturing defensiveness, but that form of response serves a purpose to the point as well.

JB at least took the time to think about it, and that is commendable.  

But, JB – ‘Illogical to the extreme’ is not by any means an opinion on the topic.  Apply Logic to the entire thought -- “The idea that a God gave his humanity free-will is illogical in the extreme, and does not argue in favor of a theology that includes an Omnipotent God.”  Logic, applied to this sequence, first supposes either God as a fact or Free-will as a fact.  Experience grants that we know of free-will, and exercise same daily, so let us take the free-will portion as the fact in the sequence.  God, on the other hand, is a highly debated abstraction, meaning different things to different people (as much of the above discussion demonstrates).  IF God is as has been described by men, and actually exists, then men cannot by that definition have any will other than that provided by God.  Logic.  Logic cannot tolerate in the same sequence of argument an all-knowing, all-seeing, omnipotent and omnipresent Creator and also propose the ability to know or act outside of the influence of this Being.

And again, JB, pure Logic is not opinion-based, so once again we must parse the whole thought – “But if this choice to ‘stray’ from the ‘True’ path is also allowed in a God Ordered universe, then God is no longer benevolent or omnipotent, and routinely sees His plans and mandates countermanded by men. That is to say – by chance, rather than by design.”  Logically, a benevolent God, by definition, would want the best for his Creation.  Also, by definition, this particular proposed God is all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful.  Creating evil, then ‘allowing’ men to ‘choose’ it is completely inconsistent with these attributes.  To contend such a thing is illogical, and casts God in the light of a torturer, who Created men for the sole purpose of toying with them, and testing their worthiness as servants, casting aside and eternally condemning those who failed the arbitrary tests.  This sort of ‘logic’ would be tantamount to training your dog to stay in the yard under penalty of death and eternal torture, then placing its food or its mate in the neighbor’s yard just to see what it decides to ‘choose.’  It is an irrational contention to equate such behavior with benevolence.

“So, good is the only thing rewarded because evil has been abolished in where repentence exists.”   And your free-will before your God allows both options, does it not?  It allows you to first choose to live a life of evil, then repent of that evil, sincerely, at the end, and still be rewarded.  See any justice in that idea?              What an absurd doctrine.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> It is very confusing for me too, sometimes.
> 
> The way I look at it is....once I have turned my will over to God,(by being saved) then I'm predestined...and God knew that I would do that, not that He chose it for me against my will.
> 
> ...



Does this really make sense to you?

Lets discuss this gem first, shall we?

_"The way I look at it is....once I have turned my will over to God,(by being saved) then I'm predestined...and God knew that I would do that, not that He chose it for me against my will."_

Can you explain this to me like I'm a 5 year old?  Maybe I've got the definition of predestined all wrong.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Does this really make sense to you?
> 
> Lets discuss this gem first, shall we?
> 
> ...



Predestination means we are predestined to do everything we do, die when our number is up, and be successful if God wills....we are predestined by Him, if we belong to Him.  I don't know if I could explain it to a 5 yr old, but then again you aren't a 5 year old.  Just because God knows what will happen doesn't mean He predestined it. If I smoked my entire life, does God know when I will die, yes, did He predestine me to die from smoking, no, that was against His will for me....He didn't will for me to smoke, that was my will. Would I have lived longer, maybe not, maybe so. God knew but did not predestine me to smoke and die, by His will for me. God won't choose for something bad to happen to us, we choose that ourselves...that's us working on free will, not His will.

Proverbs 3:5-7
King James Version (KJV)

 5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding. 

 6In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths. 

 7Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.


----------



## Asath (Mar 13, 2012)

I haven’t forgotten your prediction, Ambush – “ . . . the believer's final answer will be "I don't know how it works but God does and that's good enough for me".

And that IS sort of the tone of the responses, thus far . . .


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Lets discuss this gem first, shall we?
> 
> _"The way I look at it is....once I have turned my will over to God,(by being saved) then I'm predestined...and God knew that I would do that, not that He chose it for me against my will."_



Tomorrow perhaps. It makes my brain hurt.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> JB at least took the time to think about it, and that is commendable. .



  This stuff is fun. 



Asath said:


> But, JB – ‘Illogical to the extreme’ is not by any means an opinion on the topic.  Apply Logic to the entire thought -- “The idea that a God gave his humanity free-will is illogical in the extreme, and does not argue in favor of a theology that includes an Omnipotent God.”



Ok.  Your assertion that it is illogical depends on what your definition of "omnipotent" is.  I mentioned this in my initial response, but we must agree on that if we are to agree on what is "illogical."  "Extreme" is certainly an opinion.  



Asath said:


> Logic, applied to this sequence, first supposes either God as a fact or Free-will as a fact.  Experience grants that we know of free-will, and exercise same daily, so let us take the free-will portion as the fact in the sequence.  ..



I think we are debating the theology of free-will.  If we are going to do that, we must do so in the context of both God and free will co-existing.  But, back to the point....



Asath said:


> God, on the other hand, is a highly debated abstraction, meaning different things to different people (as much of the above discussion demonstrates).  IF God is as has been described by men, and actually exists, then men cannot by that definition have any will other than that provided by God.  Logic.



I just don't follow here.  Why not?  You may run into a tree, and be able to describe your experience with that tree in great detail, but it's influence in your future actions are relevant to your choice.




Asath said:


> Logic cannot tolerate in the same sequence of argument an all-knowing, all-seeing, omnipotent and omnipresent Creator and also propose the ability to know or act outside of the influence of this Being..



Sure you can.  Again, see the highlighted in red.  If we are going to have this debate, we must agree on those terms (which are also abstract).  What will be our basis?  I can do this without the Bible, if you prefer (I know you do).  We can go with the universal concept of God as well.  Your thread....you choose.




Asath said:


> And again, JB, pure Logic is not opinion-based, .



Absolutely agree!



Asath said:


> so once again we must parse the whole thought – “But if this choice to ‘stray’ from the ‘True’ path is also allowed in a God Ordered universe, then God is no longer benevolent or omnipotent, and routinely sees His plans and mandates countermanded by men. That is to say – by chance, rather than by design.” .



His plans countermanded, sure....the choice for evil.  Benevolent and omnipotent are the abstract concepts here.   Does a government which allows for free travel between territories become malevolent if some choose to travel for evil purposes?



Asath said:


> Logically, a benevolent God, by definition, would want the best for his Creation. .



I believe so.  I also think freedom is best.



Asath said:


> Also, by definition, this particular proposed God is all-knowing, all-seeing, and all-powerful.  Creating evil, then ‘allowing’ men to ‘choose’ it is completely inconsistent with these attributes. .



Now you have wandered into predestination.  You have assumed God created evil.  I do not adhere to such a position.  I believe God created free men, with the ability to choose. Evil exists as a natural counter to good.  As in my first response, good is not good if there is not evil.

It is only inconsistent if you believe the choice does not exist.  If you believe in predestination, then you have to assume that all is as was intended, then you may assign whatever factual attribute you see to the matter.  Benevolence goes out the window at that point, unless your definition of benevolent strays from its commonly accepted use (such as assuming God defines good, so evil is good if created or caused by God).



Asath said:


> To contend such a thing is illogical, and casts God in the light of a torturer, who Created men for the sole purpose of toying with them, and testing their worthiness as servants, casting aside and eternally condemning those who failed the arbitrary tests..



Again, you have blended both predestination and free will. If free will and God both exist, then God created men to be free.  If Free will does not exist, and God did, then he would be the designer of all that happens, and the choice is only his.

As for the quote in blue.  You assume the motivation of creation.  Not sure we can go there yet.




Asath said:


> This sort of ‘logic’ would be tantamount to training your dog to stay in the yard under penalty of death and eternal torture, then placing its food or its mate in the neighbor’s yard just to see what it decides to ‘choose.’  It is an irrational contention to equate such behavior with benevolence..



Good analogy, but let's consider it another way.  Let's assume free will for a moment, then in your analogy the dog would cross the line and get zapped.  However, what was the motivation for placing the food outside the line?  This is a different topic all together, but we can run that rabbit if you want to.

My point of this paragraph is to state that the purpose of the "lines" cannot be assumed to be a test for men.



Asath said:


> “So, good is the only thing rewarded because evil has been abolished in where repentence exists.”   And your free-will before your God allows both options, does it not?  It allows you to first choose to live a life of evil, then repent of that evil, sincerely, at the end, and still be rewarded.  See any justice in that idea?  .



Where is the justice if the reward is not offered at all?           




Asath said:


> What an absurd doctrine.



It's your thread, but can we avoid this kind-of statement for a bit?  It brings out the worst in folks....puts 'em on the defensive.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> I haven’t forgotten your prediction, Ambush – “ . . . the believer's final answer will be "I don't know how it works but God does and that's good enough for me".
> 
> And that IS sort of the tone of the responses, thus far . . .



Really?


----------



## Asath (Mar 13, 2012)

So, in a nutshell:

“5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”     

Stay ignorant.

“6In all thy ways acknowledge him, and he shall direct thy paths.”

Follow blindly.

“7Be not wise in thine own eyes: fear the LORD, and depart from evil.”

Trust us, we’re from the government and we’re here to help you . . .


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> So, in a nutshell:
> 
> “5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
> 
> ...



Whos response are you summarizing?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> So, in a nutshell:
> 
> “5Trust in the LORD with all thine heart; and lean not unto thine own understanding.”
> 
> ...



Well basically that's what it's like living without your own free will....that's my point.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Tomorrow perhaps. It makes my brain hurt.



Why does it make your brain hurt, because i said it?

Let me ask you this again, not that you will answer, but if you sin, is it God's fault because you have no free will to sin? Or do you think that you never sin?

Did you sin more before or after you were saved, or did you know from day one that you were selected to be saved and never have to worry about whether you sin or not, because you aren't working on free will when it comes to sin....it's God's predestination that causes you to sin?

That's what makes my brain hurt....if I have no free, why do I still sin?

If you have a problem with me replying to your posts, then do not respond or refer to mine, ok?....sheesh...how many times do I have to say that?

Tell me  why do you sin if you don't have free will? How is it possible?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Predestination means we are predestined to do everything we do, die when our number is up, and be successful if God wills....we are predestined by Him, if we belong to Him.  I don't know if I could explain it to a 5 yr old, but then again you aren't a 5 year old.  Just because God knows what will happen doesn't mean He predestined it. If I smoked my entire life, does God know when I will die, yes, did He predestine me to die from smoking, no, that was against His will for me....He didn't will for me to smoke, that was my will. Would I have lived longer, maybe not, maybe so. God knew but did not predestine me to smoke and die, by His will for me. God won't choose for something bad to happen to us, we choose that ourselves...that's us working on free will, not His will.
> 
> Proverbs 3:5-7
> King James Version (KJV)
> ...



Did he know you were going to take that first smoke?  Did he know you would become addicted?  If the answer is "yes" then you had no choice.  We've done this before.  


P.S.  Bible verses?  Really?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> I haven’t forgotten your prediction, Ambush – “ . . . the believer's final answer will be "I don't know how it works but God does and that's good enough for me".
> 
> And that IS sort of the tone of the responses, thus far . . .



Ever see this beauty?

http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=636168&highlight=who+are+the+elect



JB0704 said:


> Really?



Yes, really.  Because at the end of the day, on matters like this (and talking donkeys, too) "His ways are not our ways" will be the final volley in the believer's arsenal.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Yes, really.  Because at the end of the day, on matters like this (and talking donkeys, too) "His ways are not our ways" will be the final volley in the believer's arsenal.



Talking donkeys are a different subject.  The discussion is on the concept of free will.  We can discuss that through logic, without the Bible.

But, the fact remains that he has gotten responses outside what both of you have suggested ("I don't know how it works, etc.."), I have responded twice to his assertions, and once to a suggestion from you which were in no way relevant to "I don't know how it works....."  In all honesty, I don't think the discussion has even begun yet.  We have to have a basis for agreement on terms first.

If you(pl) want to plug in the easiest position to attack, that is fine, I can't defend it because it is not mine, and I will be back when we can debate the "free-will" thing again.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Did he know you were going to take that first smoke?  Did he know you would become addicted?  If the answer is "yes" then you had no choice.  We've done this before.



Ok let's go to the 5 yr old lesson....lol
If I know you will get hammered doing cartwells in walmart parking lot, but I tell you stop, don't do it, don't run out there....the child runs out there and the child gets hammered. Is it my fault because I knew the child would die, and therefore I predestined it my ownself? by letting it happen? 
I guess then that all sin would be God's fault if we had no free will, wouldn't it. If I don't have free will I can't do anything outside of Him, can I?


----------



## Asath (Mar 13, 2012)

Sorry JB, but you’re insisting on having your cake and eating it too.  Free-will and predestination are wholly separate things.  They cannot co-exist.

‘Omnipotent’ is the definition believers ascribe to their God.  Since there is no such thing outside the realm of fantasy, the definition of such a thing is entirely theirs.  But, by my dictionary, the definition of this fantasy excludes any limits to power.  And, in theological terms, this is what they refer to when speaking of the ‘All-Powerful’ God who was able to create the entire universe out of sheer power of will.  That you may, personally, lend a different definition to the term than the theologians is perhaps an encouraging sign of doubt.

“I think we are debating the theology of free-will. If we are going to do that, we must do so in the context of both God and free will co-existing.”  Not really.  The point here is that the two CANNOT co-exist.  If a pre-condition of the discussion is accepting the asserted negation of same then truly there is nothing to say. 

Another asserted pre-condition:  “ . . . we must agree on those terms  . . .”  Again. Not really.  The use of those terms in theology is so well time-worn and entered whole into the record that niggling over what exactly they mean by them is between themselves at this point – those terms are thundered at the rest of us by the evangelicals, and if the theological apologists do not yet understand them then perhaps they ought to deconstruct their dogmas themselves and start over.

“You have assumed God created evil.”  Not really.  I’ve assumed nothing.  I merely quote the theological line that God created EVERYTHING.  If you do not adhere to that thought, then you are already on my side in the debate without realizing it . . . 

“If free will and God both exist, then God created men to be free.”   If this were the case, then, logically, God would then have no further rights or powers over a ‘free’ creation.  But theology argues that this is not the case.

“ . . . the purpose of the "lines" cannot be assumed to be a test for men.”  But if the carrot and the stick – reward or punishment – that is the root basis of theology does not hinge on a test of the worthiness of men to receive one or the other, then what would be the point of the threats and promises therein contained?

“Where is the justice if the reward is not offered at all?”   Ah, as Shakespeare observed, there’s the rub – has anyone ever seen this reward?  Offered, yes, but demonstrated as real?  Not so much.  Remember here that we’re talking in the context of theology and belief – the same concepts that ‘rewarded’ the ‘martyrs’ who ‘sacrificed’ themselves in the name of same by flying airplanes into buildings . . .


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Talking donkeys are a different subject.  The discussion is on the concept of free will.  We can discuss that through logic, without the Bible.
> 
> But, the fact remains that he has gotten responses outside what both of you have suggested ("I don't know how it works, etc.."), I have responded twice to his assertions, and once to a suggestion from you which were in no way relevant to "I don't know how it works....."  In all honesty, I don't think the discussion has even begun yet.  We have to have a basis for agreement on terms first.
> 
> If you(pl) want to plug in the easiest position to attack, that is fine, I can't defend it because it is not mine, and I will be back when we can debate the "free-will" thing again.



Ok. Lets agree on the terms first.  Should we use Webster or do you have another preference?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Did he know you were going to take that first smoke?  Did he know you would become addicted?  If the answer is "yes" then you had no choice.  We've done this before.
> 
> 
> P.S.  Bible verses?  Really?



God is Omniscient  that means He knows everything, doesn't mean He predestines everything.  Why would He predestine people to sin? People sin because they have free will to do so. He knows we will sin, but does not choose/predestine us to sin....because we have free will to do so. 

God knew I would do all those things about smoking that means God is Omniscient....He doesn't predestine us to smoke and die and that's why we started smoking. We started on our own, not based on His predestination to destroy us.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Ok. Lets agree on the terms first.  Should we use Webster or do you have another preference?



You choose.  Let's start by defining omniscient.   Webster will be fine, I guess.  Anything you (pl) and I can agree on....then we can get on to the topic.

Omnipotent
Omniscient
Benevolent
Malevolent


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Ok let's go to the 5 yr old lesson....lol
> If I know you will get hammered doing cartwells in walmart parking lot, but I tell you stop, don't do it, don't run out there....the child runs out there and the child gets hammered. Is it my fault because I knew the child would die, and therefore I predestined it my ownself? by letting it happen?
> I guess then that all sin would be God's fault if we had no free will, wouldn't it. If I don't have free will I can't do anything outside of Him, can I?



We did this one in the "Elect" thread, remember? 

What if the child cartwheeled and made it all the way through unscathed.   Would that be a miracle?  Was it predestined?  Was it a special case of God manipulating free will like he did to Jonah or Pharaoh?

I guess you didn't REALLY know what would happen to the child then; because you're not omniscient.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> God is Omniscient  that means He knows everything, doesn't mean He predestines everything.  Why would He predestine people to sin? People sin because they have free will to do so. He knows we will sin, but does not choose/predestine us to sin....because we have free will to do so.
> 
> God knew I would do all those things about smoking that means God is Omniscient....He doesn't predestine us to smoke and die and that's why we started smoking. We started on our own, not based on His predestination to destroy us.



I don't know what to say.  Someone help.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I guess you didn't REALLY know what would happen to the child then; because you're not omniscient.



Bingo. 
Yet you changed up the scenerio. Even though the child disobeyed, it was still spared....then we go into mercy, grace and predestined.

That goes back to how I can believe in free will and predesdination at the same time, wasn't that your original question a few posts back? that made gems brain hurt?

5 yr old preachin' works....yay! I'll explain it the best I can 42 times if I have to.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> You choose.  Let's start by defining omniscient.   Webster will be fine, I guess.  Anything you (pl) and I can agree on....then we can get on to the topic.
> 
> Omnipotent
> Omniscient
> ...



From Webster:

Definition of OMNISCIENT
1
: having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2
: possessed of universal or complete knowledge 

As Asath pointed out,  there is no such being that possesses this power except in imagination.  But for the sake of amusement (I like a good science fiction) let's say that there is a being with this ability.  Explain to me how choice, true choice,  can coexist with such a being around.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Bingo.
> Yet you changed up the scenerio. Even though the child disobeyed, it was still spared....then we go into mercy, grace and predestined.
> 
> That goes back to how I can believe in free will and predesdination at the same time, wasn't that your original question a few posts back? that made gems brain hurt?
> ...




I truly believe that you have explained it the best you can at this point.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I don't know what to say.  Someone help.



It ain't that hard. It doesn't make sense to you of course, but you should at least be able to comprehend what I believe, whether you believe it or not.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> I haven’t forgotten your prediction, Ambush – “ . . . the believer's final answer will be "I don't know how it works but God does and that's good enough for me".
> 
> And that IS sort of the tone of the responses, thus far . . .



One of the great aspects of any religion is you don't have to completely rely on logic. Reminds me of Star Trek and Mr. Spock, he didn't understand human's logic. This is called faith. Getting back to debunking Free Will: My feelings are: if God knows in any way what decision you are going to make then it's not free will even if he doesn't interfere. The example of a mother asking her child if they want chocolate or vanilla ice cream,(giving them a choice), but knowing they will choose chocolate, is the poorest example of free will imaginable. I believe you have to believe in free will or predestination and not a combination of the two. That being said (there's always a scenario that doesn't fit): There are examples of God intervening in peoples destiny. He has that power to use someone if he wants to. (potter clay good/bad analogy)


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I truly believe that you have explained it the best you can at this point.



Well ok, I hope you get it. If not....then I'm really sorry.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> From Webster:
> 
> Definition of OMNISCIENT
> 1
> ...



Ok....that was a knock out. Ambush in the lead!!



Ding ding...round two.

What does predestination mean?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

Asath said:


> Sorry JB, but you’re insisting on having your cake and eating it too.  Free-will and predestination are wholly separate things.  They cannot co-exist..



Absolutely agree.  I apologize for not being more clear.  It is my opinion that you were wanting it both ways in a few areas.



Asath said:


> ‘Omnipotent’ is the definition believers ascribe to their God.  Since there is no such thing outside the realm of fantasy, the definition of such a thing is entirely theirs.  But, by my dictionary, the definition of this fantasy excludes any limits to power.  And, in theological terms, this is what they refer to when speaking of the ‘All-Powerful’ God who was able to create the entire universe out of sheer power of will.  That you may, personally, lend a different definition to the term than the theologians is perhaps an encouraging sign of doubt..



Omnipotent is a concept, I agree. It is found only once in the KJV in the book of Revelation relevant to a praise given to God.

By definition, it is unlimited power.  But, that definition is useless because God, then, could not build a rock he could not pick up.  Are we arguing concepts here?  I do not think omnipotent means "sees the future."  I believe it is relevant to that which is possible (listed example would not be if it existed).



Asath said:


> ‘“I think we are debating the theology of free-will. If we are going to do that, we must do so in the context of both God and free will co-existing.”  Not really.  The point here is that the two CANNOT co-exist.  If a pre-condition of the discussion is accepting the asserted negation of same then truly there is nothing to say. .



But, you are contending that they can't......I still haven't seen your logical smoking gun.



Asath said:


> ‘“Another asserted pre-condition:  “ . . . we must agree on those terms  . . .”  Again. Not really.  The use of those terms in theology is so well time-worn and entered whole into the record that niggling over what exactly they mean by them is between themselves at this point – those terms are thundered at the rest of us by the evangelicals, and if the theological apologists do not yet understand them then perhaps they ought to deconstruct their dogmas themselves and start over..



Are you debating them or me?  We can come to an agreement, or a basis for understanding to move forward.  That is all I am asking.  If you want me to take a traditional approach, I will have to respectfully bail, as it is not mine.



Asath said:


> “You have assumed God created evil.”  Not really.  I’ve assumed nothing.  I merely quote the theological line that God created EVERYTHING.  If you do not adhere to that thought, then you are already on my side in the debate without realizing it . . . .



I believe God created existence.  Evil is a natural byproduct of good.  It does not have to be by design.  



Asath said:


> “If free will and God both exist, then God created men to be free.”   If this were the case, then, logically, God would then have no further rights or powers over a ‘free’ creation.  But theology argues that this is not the case..



I do not agree. Men could be free to choose whatever was within creation.  Manipulation does not elliminate choice.  Nor does it define God's actions (hand being forced to act by evil).



Asath said:


> “ . . . the purpose of the "lines" cannot be assumed to be a test for men.”  But if the carrot and the stick – reward or punishment – that is the root basis of theology does not hinge on a test of the worthiness of men to receive one or the other, then what would be the point of the threats and promises therein contained?.



Again, this is a rabbit trail, if you want to run it, we can.  But, let's look at it like this.....I eat healthy because I want to be healthy.  I have to forgo the things I love in order to be healthy.  I have just created lines which are irrelevant to punishment, and only relevant to reward.



Asath said:


> “Where is the justice if the reward is not offered at all?”   Ah, as Shakespeare observed, there’s the rub – has anyone ever seen this reward?  Offered, yes, but demonstrated as real?  Not so much.  Remember here that we’re talking in the context of theology and belief – the same concepts that ‘rewarded’ the ‘martyrs’ who ‘sacrificed’ themselves in the name of same by flying airplanes into buildings . . .



I was only pointing out that the coin had two sides.  I kind-of disagree with the premise that everything is a "reward v punishment" scenario.  It is a context for existence...which is the creation.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Ever see this beauty?
> 
> http://forum.gon.com/showthread.php?t=636168&highlight=who+are+the+elect
> 
> ...



Why did it get locked? I thought the only taboo topic was Bible Versions. If we can't talk about the major difference of Christian Beliefs then we should just quote John 3:16.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 13, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> From Webster:
> 
> Definition of OMNISCIENT
> 1
> ...



It all depends on whether infinite awareness includes awareness of things which may not be knowable, such as what my choice might be.  It appears to me that God can change his mind, if so, then he has not pre-ordained everything.  The future is uncertain (as a whole), and as such, I can be free to act without such actions being ordained or known in order to be manipulated.

In red:
No need for all that.  I will continue to show your belief system respect regardless.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> One of the great aspects of any religion is you don't have to completely rely on logic. Reminds me of Star Trek and Mr. Spock, he didn't understand human's logic. This is called faith. Getting back to debunking Free Will: My feelings are: if God knows in any way what decision you are going to make then it's not free will even if he doesn't interfere. The example of a mother asking her child if they want chocolate or vanilla ice cream,(giving them a choice), but knowing they will choose chocolate, is the poorest example of free will imaginable. I believe you have to believe in free will or predestination and not a combination of the two. That being said (there's always a scenario that doesn't fit): There are examples of God intervening in peoples destiny. He has that power to use someone if he wants to. (potter clay good/bad analogy)



I would say that is the absolute worst aspect of religion and more specifically Belief.



Artfuldodger said:


> Why did it get locked? I thought the only taboo topic was Bible Versions. If we can't talk about the major difference of Christian Beliefs then we should just quote John 3:16.



You should read it. 

And by the way, there was alot of John 3:16 being thrown around in there.  Lots of debate about what "Whomever" or "Who so ever" means and who it applied to.  It was a beautiful train wreck.  You could see the flames for miles.

But it's not the book's fault.  It's the readers'


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 13, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It all depends on whether infinite awareness includes awareness of things which may not be knowable, such as what my choice might be.  It appears to me that God can change his mind, if so, then he has not pre-ordained everything.  The future is uncertain (as a whole), and as such, I can be free to act without such actions being ordained or known in order to be manipulated.
> 
> In red:
> No need for all that.  I will continue to show your belief system respect regardless.



_"It all depends on whether infinite awareness includes awareness of things which may not be knowable,"_

Do tell.....

With all due respect, you're talking about a being that sees everything, knows everything and is all powerful.  I have only heard of such a thing in fictions.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> You should read it.
> 
> And by the way, there was alot of John 3:16 being thrown around in there.  Lots of debate about what "Whomever" or "Who so ever" means and who it applied to.  It was a beautiful train wreck.  You could see the flames for miles.
> 
> But it's not the book's fault.  It's the readers'



Actually that is incorrect. Whomsoever and Who so ever are both hated by the no will tulip believing Calvinists. 
Whosoever believeth or whomsoever believeth is the some thing. The debate was that it's not whomsoever will believe but whomsoever God chooses/predestines/elects to be saved....that was the debate.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It all depends on whether infinite awareness includes awareness of things which may not be knowable, such as what my choice might be.  It appears to me that God can change his mind, if so, then he has not pre-ordained everything.  The future is uncertain (as a whole), and as such, I can be free to act without such actions being ordained or known in order to be manipulated.
> 
> In red:
> No need for all that.  I will continue to show your belief system respect regardless.


 Perhaps in god's infinite awareness, he chooses to stop looking at the movie as to not manipulate the plot.
On a lighter note and not related, the Princess Bride poison scene just entered my mind.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> Perhaps in god's infinite awareness, he chooses to stop looking at the movie as to not manipulate the plot.
> On a lighter note and not related, the Princess Bride poison scene just entered my mind.



Come on... Like Superman can fly but he likes to just walk sometimes?





ambush80 said:


> Please, join the discussion.  You will find that the people here will completely agree with your theology about predestination and omniscience.  If an omniscient, omnipotent being exists then there is no free will.  It's only logical.  Every atheist will agree with that.  It's only a few floors up that you will hear all this "He can suspend his super powers so that he doesn't know what will happen" or "He operates on different dimensions" or "He just wouldn't do that" or my personal favorite "I don't know how he does it but I just know that he does".   It's all jumping through hoops, but you know that.
> 
> The argument that you will get here is whether or not such a being exists and we can discuss that like adults.



Told ya.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

I hope that everyone at this point (Besides perhaps mtnwoman) can agree that omniscient in it's strictest definition, makes free will impossible. Even for god.

The existence of any all knowing entity, or even the ability or possibility to know everything, contradicts free will in it's entirety, those two things simply cannot exist in the same reality.

A) is the knowledge of any given event will happen
B) is the ability to modify if a given event will happen

As soon as B is asserted, A is invalidated on any given event.

Lets say i predict / know you will eat a ham sandwich for lunch (im god!) 

If you can choose not to eat a ham sandwich, I was wrong, at which point we can easily say that i am not 'all knowing'.

If you cannot do anything but eat the ham sandwich, then you have no free will.

OK, so if we can all agree on the premise, we can move on to remove the quality of omniscient as a valid quality to apply to a god that claims free will

Now, JB0704 i believe put forth a premise that god isn't completely omniscient, which is fine, but unfortunately for the theological perspective, this take away a bit of the glammor of god, when we remove these contradictory attributes, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, It seems like we can now just describe god as a really powerful alien or something.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> I hope that everyone at this point (Besides perhaps mtnwoman) can agree that omniscient in it's strictest definition, makes free will impossible.



Agreed, but what you will find and why this thread will most likely get locked, is that a freewiller will fight tooth and nail for what they treasure most. Something they did of their own free will that assures them of their salvation. IMO


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Now, JB0704 i believe put forth a premise that god isn't completely omniscient, which is fine, but unfortunately for the theological perspective, this take away a bit of the glammor of god, when we remove these contradictory attributes, omniscient, omnipotent, omnipresent, etc, It seems like we can now just describe god as a really powerful alien or something.



Had not thought of that.  Not sure if it takes away the "glamour" if we assume such a being is capable of cerating the universe....that's pretty darn fancy from my perspective.  If we define "completely omniscient" as in knowing all choices all men will make in all of eternity....then I would assume you are correct, that free will cannot exist in that context.

I have read a lot about this, and have tossed out my "football season" analogy before.  There are some schools of thought that indicate past behavior / history gives a high predictability of future behavior, but that the future is not completely written.  So, we think we know who will be in the Superbowl, we know when the game will be played, we just don't know if those teams will follow through during the regular season.  I will try and find some links (I try to avoid posting them because nobody reads them).

But, if above analogy is correct, the problem of evil and free-will is solved.  If it is incorrect, Gemc is right, and the future is already written.  And if that is the case, the future already exists on some levels.....which I do not see as the case.  We would have to "be" within all points of time, and from God's perspective, we would exist both in modern reality and in heaven or he11.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> On a lighter note and not related, the Princess Bride poison scene just entered my mind.



Great movie!


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Had not thought of that.  Not sure if it takes away the "glamour" if we assume such a being is capable of cerating the universe....that's pretty darn fancy from my perspective.  If we define "completely omniscient" as in knowing all choices all men will make in all of eternity....then I would assume you are correct, that free will cannot exist in that context.
> 
> I have read a lot about this, and have tossed out my "football season" analogy before.  There are some schools of thought that indicate past behavior / history gives a high predictability of future behavior, but that the future is not completely written.  So, we think we know who will be in the Superbowl, we know when the game will be played, we just don't know if those teams will follow through during the regular season.  I will try and find some links (I try to avoid posting them because nobody reads them).
> 
> But, if above analogy is correct, the problem of evil and free-will is solved.  If it is incorrect, Gemc is right, and the future is already written.  And if that is the case, the future already exists on some levels.....which I do not see as the case.  We would have to "be" within all points of time, and from God's perspective, we would exist both in modern reality and in heaven or he11.



Well if we're conceptualizing god, we're starting with a blank slate. All we have so far is what this entity is not, which is all knowing. We haven't come close to establish being a creator of the universe yet.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Well if we're conceptualizing god, we're starting with a blank slate. All we have so far is what this entity is not, which is all knowing. We haven't come close to establish being a creator of the universe yet.



I thought we were starting in the middle?  And all knowing can include things which can be known, and not the future choices of free men.

I am a little puzzled by my thoughts on this, and will have to do a lot of extracurricular reading to verify I am not throwing out some serious junk in this thread.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I thought we were starting in the middle?  And all knowing can include things which can be known, and not the future choices of free men.
> 
> I am a little puzzled by my thoughts on this, and will have to do a lot of extracurricular reading to verify I am not throwing out some serious junk in this thread.



Oh balls,  i have no idea what starting in the middle means... heh, I suppose i made my point about free will, and that's what the OP was about.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Oh balls,  i have no idea what starting in the middle means... heh, I suppose i made my point about free will, and that's what the OP was about.



Yes, but again, there are many ways to look at. Open theism is one thought....here is the wiki link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism

That is kind-of what I am trying to describe, but again, I have some research to do before I say it is what I absolutely believe.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> And all knowing can include things which can be known, and not the future choices of free men.



I'm sorry but I can't comprehend that at all.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, but again, there are many ways to look at. Open theism is one thought....here is the wiki link:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism
> 
> That is kind-of what I am trying to describe, but again, I have some research to do before I say it is what I absolutely believe.



Yea, which is why i always like to come back to definitions, even within a certain sect there are so many different ways people define god it's frustrating.

God is outside time, god is love, god knows all, god is all powerful, god is outside the universe, god is incorporeal, etc.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I'm sorry but I can't comprehend that at all.



Sorry, I'm working through it....turns out a lot of folks have struggled with this over the years.

Knowing everything could mean everything that is knowable.  If there is only one reality, now, then the future reality might not be knowable.  I just posted a link relevant to a similar mindset.  I am not declaring myself an open theist, just debating the point from that logic.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Yea, which is why i always like to come back to definitions, even within a certain sect there are so many different ways people define god it's frustrating.



I understand.  I was trying to get it all on the same page as far as "omipotent" was concerned, but apparently failed miserably, as everyone kept saying that I was claiming "I don't know how it works but it does...." or something to that effect.  Which is not what I said at all.

Anyway, can free-will and omnipotent exist if the concept of open theism is accurate, from a logical perspective.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Sorry, I'm working through it....turns out a lot of folks have struggled with this over the years.
> 
> Knowing everything could mean everything that is knowable.  If there is only one reality, now, then the future reality might not be knowable.  I just posted a link relevant to a similar mindset.  I am not declaring myself an open theist, just debating the point from that logic.



The issue is when you use the phase "everything that is knowable" 

This isn't precise, we could argue back and forth what is knowable. I could easily argue that knowing peoples thoughts are unknowable, and knowing certain things about the past are unknowable. 

When we say "know everything" but everything isn't really everything, everything becomes some things


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> I understand.
> Anyway, can free-will and omnipotent exist if the concept of open theism is accurate, from a logical perspective.



I assume you mean Omniscient? Omnipotent is the all powerful one.

If you mean Omniscient, then yes, so long as you change / define Omniscient as not extending into the future, then it no longer contradicts free will.

That would be hard to reconcile with Christianity (in my opinion) as it's filled with prophesy and predictions about the future, which would imply that god did know  these things (or things it did..)

edit: i'd like to note, omnipotence is contradictory in itself, its just simply paradoxical.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 14, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Agreed, but what you will find and why this thread will most likely get locked, is that a freewiller will fight tooth and nail for what they treasure most. Something they did of their own free will that assures them of their salvation. IMO


If we don't have free will how can we continue to argue about it? Why would God have planned this wee little argument we are having right now?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Come on... Like Superman can fly but he likes to just walk sometimes?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
Well, i thinks it's more like "Bewitch"


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> That would be hard to reconcile with Christianity (in my opinion) as it's filled with prophesy and predictions about the future, which would imply that god did know  these things (or things it did..)



Yet, within Christianity there are examples o God changing his mind.  Gemc is going to disagree, and I think I would like to have a discussion with him on his thoughts seperately, but.....(and you brought up Christianity, so I have to use Bible references which are the basis for such a belief).....

...In the NT, it is said clearly that God wants all to go to heaven (1 Tim. 2:3-4, 2 Pet. 3:9).  However, not all are going (Mathew 7:14).  So, if God ordains the future, then he ordains against his will.  If he always got his will, then all would go to heaven.  To me, this implies actions are taken against his will.  Or, that God does not know what the individual will choose, and, that he can change his mind on something.

Here is one link on the topic of God knowing the future, if you need a summary I will provide it:

http://www.truthortradition.com/modules.php?file=article&name=News&sid=14


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> edit: i'd like to note, omnipotence is contradictory in itself, its just simply paradoxical.




....can od make a rock he can't pick up, sort of thing?


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> ....can od make a rock he can't pick up, sort of thing?



Yea, that kind of thing.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yet, within Christianity there are examples o God changing his mind.  Gemc is going to disagree, and I think I would like to have a discussion with him on his thoughts seperately, but.....(and you brought up Christianity, so I have to use Bible references which are the basis for such a belief).....
> 
> ...In the NT, it is said clearly that God wants all to go to heaven (1 Tim. 2:3-4, 2 Pet. 3:9).  However, not all are going (Mathew 7:14).  So, if God ordains the future, then he ordains against his will.  If he always got his will, then all would go to heaven.  To me, this implies actions are taken against his will.  Or, that God does not know what the individual will choose, and, that he can change his mind on something.
> 
> ...



I agree with the mind changing, simply going from OT to NT shows a drastic change in personality. Maybe the prophesies are more predictions then prophecy?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, but again, there are many ways to look at. Open theism is one thought....here is the wiki link:
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_theism
> 
> That is kind-of what I am trying to describe, but again, I have some research to do before I say it is what I absolutely believe.



I admittedly rifled through the link but I don't think that I saw Omniscience mentioned once.  Maybe You and they just don't believe that god is omniscient.  



Four said:


> The issue is when you use the phase "everything that is knowable"
> 
> This isn't precise, we could argue back and forth what is knowable. I could easily argue that knowing peoples thoughts are unknowable, and knowing certain things about the past are unknowable.
> 
> When we say "know everything" but everything isn't really everything, everything becomes some things



Tru dat.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> It ain't that hard. It doesn't make sense to you of course, but you should at least be able to comprehend what I believe, whether you believe it or not.



I comprehend the clear disconnect in your reasoning.


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 14, 2012)

He knows when you are sleeping-  He knows when you're awake-  He knows when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake....OOOOOOHHHHH, you better watch out- You better not cry..........


Fear makes the masses toe the line.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I admittedly rifled through the link but I don't think that I saw Omniscience mentioned once.  Maybe You and they just don't believe that god is omniscient.



It's a bit more complicated than that.  If you have time, give it a good read, there are more nuggets in there which I could cut and paste in response to many of the questions posted on here, but I will only do one for now:



> We can understand that from statements such as what He said to Abraham in Genesis 22:12, “Now I know that you fear God.…” If words have meanings, up until that moment God did not absolutely know what Abraham, a free will being, would choose to do. If a person has genuine free will, then his choices cannot be absolutely known in advance of his decisions to make those choices, even by God—unless, of course, He says differently in His Word, which He does not.



So, it could be that omniscient does not include the things which are not knowable.  I know that is a bit confusing, these fellas said it better than me.  Anyway, I am still working through it all.  Not declaring for "open theism" as of now.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> Fear makes the masses toe the line.



Particularly in reference to Santa Clause.  What kid doesn't want presents?

Now, how does that apply to the topic at hand?


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Particularly in reference to Santa Clause.  What kid doesn't want presents?
> 
> Now, how does that apply to the topic at hand?



I think he's pointing out that god knowing what you think and were you are, etc is all apart of making it so you cant hide / run from the 'sky daddy' creating a sense of fear / hopelessness about your sinning.

God being 'all knowing' is an important thing for the church when it comes to controlling people


----------



## drippin' rock (Mar 14, 2012)

Santa Claus knows all, God knows all.  Kids want presents, adults don't want to burn.  I think it applies nicely.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

drippin' rock said:


> Santa Claus knows all, God knows all.  Kids want presents, adults don't want to burn.  I think it applies nicely.



I really don't want to get into the idea of he11, in fact I will not, but, omniscient / non-omniscient is irrelevant to final destination as far as predicatbility of the future is concerned.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> I admittedly rifled through the link but I don't think that I saw Omniscience mentioned once.



William Hasker is one of the Christian Philosophers listed on the wiki-link.  I had to read a few of his books in college, I went to a Christian University for my undergrad.  His position is that future contingents are in principle unknowable.....which also why I started from the position that we had to agree on what the terms implied.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> God being 'all knowing' is an important thing for the church when it comes to controlling people



"Control" is not the goal of a Christian as far as I can tell while reading the instructions.  More like a guidebook to the good-life (love your neighbor, feed the poor, don't steal, love God, etc.).

A church should not present such principles to control, but to aid in an individual's path to the "good-life," for no other purpose but to aide that individual who willingly chooses to be there and listen.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> "Control" is not the goal of a Christian as far as I can tell while reading the instructions.  More like a guidebook to the good-life (love your neighbor, feed the poor, don't steal, love God, etc.).
> 
> A church should not present such principles to control, but to aid in an individual's path to the "good-life," for no other purpose but to aide that individual who willingly chooses to be there and listen.



historically speaking, the church / churches, or the state were in complete control of the bible, the printing, editing and modifying there of, inserting and removing cannon, as well as the sole interpreter for an extremely long time.

The church / state certainly has the goal of control and i'm not going to get back into the true christian argument, we can certainly agree christian or not, the bible has been used as a tool for control a whole heck of a lot.

edit: imagine this dialog

Guy 1: You should do X, Y, & Z
Guy 2: Why?
Guy 1: God said so, here right in this book!
Guy 2: So? why should i care what this fellow wants me to do?
Guy 1: God created you, and wants you to be happy!
Guy 2: Well i'll be quite happy doing as i see fit thank you very much! Also, i do believe this fellow, if he did create me, disregarded such ownership when he set me loose!
Guy 1: If you don't do what's in the book, you'll go to he11, if you do, you'll live forever in a paradise!
Guy 2: Well that's interesting, I suppose i can at least fake it...
Guy 1: Nononon, you cant fake it, god knows everything, you cant trick god
Guy 2: well crap...


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> The church / state certainly has the goal of control and i'm not going to get back into the true christian argument, we can certainly agree christian or not, the bible has been used as a tool for control a whole heck of a lot.



Yes, it has.

And I should define the "good-life" as living a Christian life.  I avoided it previsouly to stay away from the traps that would certainly come next.  But, for the sake of not being called a heretic, I will say the goal of a Christian should be to live a "Christian (Christ-like) life."  Chruch should be a tool of assistance in this goal, not a tool for force towards this end....as that would not be very Christian of them.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> It's a bit more complicated than that.  If you have time, give it a good read, there are more nuggets in there which I could cut and paste in response to many of the questions posted on here, but I will only do one for now:
> 
> 
> 
> So, it could be that omniscient does not include the things which are not knowable.  I know that is a bit confusing, these fellas said it better than me.  Anyway, I am still working through it all.  Not declaring for "open theism" as of now.



Indeed, god said "Adam, where art thou?"  Rhetorical question?

Like Four said, if there are some things that are unknowable then god doesn't know everything which is contrary to MANY claims in the Bible.   

We (I) keep getting back to that pesky Bible.  I thought we were going to talk about a generic god and his super powers.

For the sake of clarity would you say that you don't believe that god is omniscient by Webster's definition?


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Yes, it has.
> 
> And I should define the "good-life" as living a Christian life.  I avoided it previsouly to stay away from the traps that would certainly come next.  But, for the sake of not being called a heretic, I will say the goal of a Christian should be to live a "Christian (Christ-like) life."  Chruch should be a tool of assistance in this goal, not a tool for force towards this end....as that would not be very Christian of them.




I don't think any of this has any relevance towards the conversation, you didn't understand what a pose about falling in line was about, and i attempted to explain how the ability for a diety to "know all" is a keystone for control.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> edit: imagine this dialog
> 
> Guy 1: You should do X, Y, & Z
> Guy 2: Why?
> ...



Funny dialog.  But, if we can replace he11 with benefits of doing whats in the book, that would work too.

Again, I am going to avoid the topic of he11, but it should not be the motivator.  I don't believe in Jesus because I am afraid of he11.   So, count me as one Christian you have had a dialog with who is not controlled through fear.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> ....you didn't understand what a pose about falling in line was about, and i attempted to explain how the ability for a diety to "know all" is a keystone for control.



I followed, I just had to CMA in case a fellow believer took issue with my choice of words, that's all.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> For the sake of clarity would you say that you don't believe that god is omniscient by Webster's definition?



Let me think about that answer, because I currently think it is yes and no........and honestly, perhaps I need to assess my position according to what I believe is true also.  I am tossing stuff out a little too quick at the moment.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Funny dialog.  But, if we can replace he11 with benefits of doing whats in the book, that would work too.
> 
> Again, I am going to avoid the topic of he11, but it should not be the motivator.  I don't believe in Jesus because I am afraid of he11.   So, count me as one Christian you have had a dialog with who is not controlled through fear.



I thought it was clear that i mentioned not just - I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -- I AM A POTTY MOUTH -, but the whole everlasting life / paradise thing. There is certainly both a stick and a carrot in the doctrine.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> I thought it was clear that i mentioned not just he11, but the whole everlasting life / paradise thing. There is certainly both a stick and a carrot in the doctrine.



When I mentioned benefits, I was not talking about the everlasting reward, and perhaps that part of this discussion should be left for another thread.

But, if you want to look at it that way, or we can view the "reward / punishment" as part of the context of existence and not motivator for behavior.  Most Christian belief systems do not tie actions / behavior to reward (both free-willers and Calvinists will agree on this point).  Actions are done in gratitude as a response to reward.  

So, from that perspective there is no stick and carrot because I don't think I can build a tower of good works to heaven.  The Bible is pretty clear on that point.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> When I mentioned benefits, I was not talking about the everlasting reward, and perhaps that part of this discussion should be left for another thread.
> 
> But, if you want to look at it that way, or we can view the "reward / punishment" as part of the context of existence and not motivator for behavior.  Most Christian belief systems do not tie actions / behavior to reward (both free-willers and Calvinists will agree on this point).  Actions are done in gratitude as a response to reward.
> 
> So, from that perspective there is no stick and carrot because I don't think I can build a tower of good works to heaven.  The Bible is pretty clear on that point.



Seems like its more complex than it needs to be. Regardless, that wasn't the point of the dialog, and i genuinely though that you wouldn't bring up he11 since i mentioned the good parts as well.

The point was, adding all knowing as an attribute to a law enforcer (god) makes it less likely someone thinks they can get away with breaking them.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> The point was, adding all knowing as an attribute to a law enforcer (god) makes it less likely someone thinks they can get away with breaking them.



Agreed.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Seems like its more complex than it needs to be. Regardless, that wasn't the point of the dialog, and i genuinely though that you wouldn't bring up he11 since i mentioned the good parts as well.



I don't know that I ever intended to focus on he11 or heaven, in fact, I hate the discussion of it, and would prefer to avoid it as much as is possible.  I only responded to the idea that behavior is motivated by the fact that "Jesus is watching" type stuff.  

Many religious people, churches, organizations have used it as a scare tactic or a motivator. That does not mean it is accurate or correct.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> edit: imagine this dialog
> 
> Guy 1: You should do X, Y, & Z
> Guy 2: Why?
> ...



What are the xyz's that are so bad that God asks you to do or not to do?
The 10 commandments, which of those should we not do?

What about proverbs? Most of those should fit for any one with morals.

What are the things that God asks us to do that could not be intended for any moral person to do anyway?

How are good and bad morals rated by atheists any way since you've seemed to make a division amongst us by your xyz post.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> What are the xyz's that are so bad that God asks you to do or not to do?
> The 10 commandments, which of those should we not do?
> 
> What about proverbs? Most of those should fit for any one with morals.
> ...



I didnt expect a post like this...

X,Y,Z are just variables, because its irrelevant for the point of the imaginary dialog. They're just supposed to represent things that god says to do. It doesn't even have a connection to any specific doctrine, and I purposefully tried to make it somewhat generic so you can apply it to any religion you would like. The only point was to say that it's easier to enforce rules when the people that are supposed to follow the rules, think there is no way to break the rules and get away with it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> I didnt expect a post like this...
> 
> X,Y,Z are just variables, because its irrelevant for the point of the imaginary dialog. They're just supposed to represent things that god says to do. It doesn't even have a connection to any specific doctrine, and I purposefully tried to make it somewhat generic so you can apply it to any religion you would like. The only point was to say that it's easier to enforce rules when the people that are supposed to follow the rules, think there is no way to break the rules and get away with it.



I was talking division between atheists and believers. 

"the people that are suppose to follow the rules".....what rules? what people? that's what I'm asking you

I understand your scenerio perfectly, I'm just wondering what rules do you think #2 wants to break?


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I was talking division between atheists and believers.
> 
> "the people that are suppose to follow the rules".....what rules? what people? that's what I'm asking you
> 
> I understand your scenerio perfectly, I'm just wondering what rules do you think #2 wants to break?



Depending on the religion it could be any number of rules... it doesn't really mater.

Lets assume i'm god in this scenario and the rule is to hop on one leg twice a week for 15 minutes.

You might think it silly and not want to do it... so you lie, or say you did, or only spent 12 minutes. But I would know, because i'm all knowing! So you cant get away with that!


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 14, 2012)

I cant believe this thread has 124 posts


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Depending on the religion it could be any number of rules... it doesn't really mater.
> 
> Lets assume i'm god in this scenario and the rule is to hop on one leg twice a week for 15 minutes.
> 
> You might think it silly and not want to do it... so you lie, or say you did, or only spent 12 minutes. But I would know, because i'm all knowing! So you cant get away with that!



I get that part. 
Hopping isn't what #2 was talking about. He doesn't want to be a rule keeper so he's trying to figure out how he can get away with something, but there is no way. Whether he follows the rules or not, whether he believes or not, whether he doesn't WANT to believe so he doesn't have to follow the rules.....the truth is, no matter what, none of us are going to be able to get away with anything in the long run. We can trick others for years and pretend to be a nice moral person but still not be. No matter who you are you shouldn't be trying to get away with stuff that is wrong.....that's why I ask you what number 2 was wanting to get away with? It must not be good or he wouldn't be worried about getting away with it.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

jmharris23 said:


> I cant believe this thread has 124 posts



And about 4 different debates going on....I like it.


----------



## Four (Mar 14, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I get that part.
> Hopping isn't what #2 was talking about. He doesn't want to be a rule keeper so he's trying to figure out how he can get away with something, but there is no way. Whether he follows the rules or not, whether he believes or not, whether he doesn't WANT to believe so he doesn't have to follow the rules.....the truth is, no matter what, none of us are going to be able to get away with anything in the long run. We can trick others for years and pretend to be a nice moral person but still not be. No matter who you are you shouldn't be trying to get away with stuff that is wrong.....that's why I ask you what number 2 was wanting to get away with? It must not be good or he wouldn't be worried about getting away with it.



Well in my magical little debate world, i didn't say that god does or does not exist, only that one person is making a claim.

Regardless if god does or does not exist, all that matters is the perception is such that the god does exist, and is all knowing. Because if a person thinks they cant get away with something, they might be less likely to attempt it.

Edit: I think your personal religious beliefs are getting in the way.

Would it help to think of the rule maker in this situation to be a parent, and reward to be a lolipop, and the punishment to be time out?


----------



## Asath (Mar 14, 2012)

“Are you debating them or me? We can come to an agreement, or a basis for understanding to move forward. That is all I am asking. If you want me to take a traditional approach, I will have to respectfully bail, as it is not mine.”

Do we really need to come up with a new definition of already defined terms to satisfy a condition of participation?  Or is this approach just deliberately pedantic and obstructive?  The terms in question: “ . . . all-knowing, all-seeing, omnipotent and omnipresent  . . . “  We just did the omnipotent part, which includes all-seeing and all-knowing, which would leave omnipresent (also included in omnipotent) but is more specifically included in theology as the concept that God is everywhere at all times (all-seeing).  For the sake of pedantic shorthand, let us simply use the word omnipotent, since it embodies all of the qualities theology ascribes to their God in a single word.

The fact that the theologians came up with so very many distinctive words to put a finer edge on the many qualities of their God is perhaps instructive by itself, but that is for a different thread.

“I believe God created existence. Evil is a natural byproduct of good.”  Existence, whether one ‘believes’ it to be created or concludes otherwise, is in and of itself neither good nor evil.  Existence merely is.  Good and Evil are human assignations without fixed definitions or boundaries, and are untestable, ‘soft’ ideas.  Theology, however, proposes that their God is Good, and is, in fact the source and sole arbiter of Good, while Evil is either the ‘choice’ of sinful men or the work of another proposed Being.  Neither of these conditions are natural to existence itself.

“I kind-of disagree with the premise that everything is a "reward v punishment" scenario. It is a context for existence...which is the creation.”  Again, existence has no context other than the conditions that exist on the planet you were born onto.  The entire ‘Eternal Reward’ for certain prescribed thoughts and behaviors, and ‘Eternal Punishment’ for all others is entirely within the realm of theology.  Not believing that this theology has substance is encouraging, and marks you as a free-thinker – which would be to say, an enemy of fundamentalist theologians.

So, I guess it’s party-time --  Standardized theology, written and fiercely defended by each and every religion as the utter and only truth, contains very specific descriptions of the characteristics and desires of their particular God.  IF you hold the opinion that there is probably a God of some sort, but you wish to avoid strict adherence to any one dogma in particular, preferring instead to forge a personal definition of exactly what God means to you as an individual – and if you find many of the concepts and definitions and descriptions of God offered by the various theologies to either be obvious nonsense or to fall firmly into the realm of the unknowable – Then you are, like it or not, by definition an AGNOSTIC.


----------



## Asath (Mar 14, 2012)

See how easy that was?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Would it help to think of the rule maker in this situation to be a parent, and reward to be a lolipop, and the punishment to be time out?



I still don't think the child should be trying to figure out a way around doing something they could get punished for. That's my point.

Are you a moral person if you're trying to figure out how you can get away with doing something that goes against the rules....let's use USA laws, or like you said parental laws. The fact that the child is trying to get away with something that is a rule, is not being taught how to be moral if someone is telling the child how to NOT abide by the rules.

Getting caught or punished might not be the worst thing that can happen to you if you disobey rules.

My beliefs are not getting in the way, it's the way I think about morals. Morals is not being smart enough to get away with something so that you look like a good and moral person and good law abiding citizen....being you are a Christian, religious, or otherwise.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 14, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Are you debating them or me? We can come to an agreement, or a basis for understanding to move forward. That is all I am asking. If you want me to take a traditional approach, I will have to respectfully bail, as it is not mine.”
> 
> Do we really need to come up with a new definition of already defined terms to satisfy a condition of participation?  Or is this approach just deliberately pedantic and obstructive?  .



Not at all.  I was under the impression that the thread was addressed to everybody.  I let it sit a bit, and nobody played along, so I jumped in.  Problem is, I do not adhere to a predes perspective, and understand that we do have free will (neither of us are puppets, you know that).  This being the case, because I firmly believe God exists, and free will exists, I recognize there are logical paths (according to me) for the two to co-exist.  I put forth one such position called "open theism."  I do not cliam this position myself at this time, still thinking it through, but some pretty respected Christians do (not to argue from majority, just to find a little comfort in numbers).



Asath said:


> The terms in question: “ . . . all-knowing, all-seeing, omnipotent and omnipresent  . . . “  We just did the omnipotent part, which includes all-seeing and all-knowing, which would leave omnipresent (also included in omnipotent) but is more specifically included in theology as the concept that God is everywhere at all times (all-seeing).  For the sake of pedantic shorthand, let us simply use the word omnipotent, since it embodies all of the qualities theology ascribes to their God in a single word..



We demonstrated, and I admitted, that the concept of omnipotent is impossible as is traditionally understood, as you know the old question, can God make a rock......?

This leads me to believe that the word, from a theological perspective, means that which is possible.  You and I would agree that energy exists everywhere in the universe.  If I believe God exists as the creator of energy, the idea of him being everywhere is not that big of a stretch.  Omnipresent...sure, why not?  That might only include the only reality which exists, this one.



Asath said:


> “I believe God created existence. Evil is a natural byproduct of good.”  Existence, whether one ‘believes’ it to be created or concludes otherwise, is in and of itself neither good nor evil.  Existence merely is.  Good and Evil are human assignations without fixed definitions or boundaries, and are untestable, ‘soft’ ideas.  Theology, however, proposes that their God is Good, and is, in fact the source and sole arbiter of Good, while Evil is either the ‘choice’ of sinful men or the work of another proposed Being.  Neither of these conditions are natural to existence itself..



We believe that because that's what we believe he is, the creator of all, manifested his nature through Jesus as a demonstration of his love.

But, I would think evil exists, and is not an abstract assignment by men to qualities which are not "good."  Do you believe certain actions / thoughts are inherently evil? Can we at least agree on that?



Asath said:


> “I kind-of disagree with the premise that everything is a "reward v punishment" scenario. It is a context for existence...which is the creation.”  Again, existence has no context other than the conditions that exist on the planet you were born onto.  The entire ‘Eternal Reward’ for certain prescribed thoughts and behaviors, and ‘Eternal Punishment’ for all others is entirely within the realm of theology.  Not believing that this theology has substance is encouraging, and marks you as a free-thinker – which would be to say, an enemy of fundamentalist theologians..



I am not their, or your, enemy.  I understand that, according to my faith, we do not work our way into heaven.  We do not exist as "test dummies" in a cosmic expiriment.  Good deeds, for the believer, are a manifestation of a desire to live a "Christian" life.....I can give you a few verses on that if you like. 



Asath said:


> So, I guess it’s party-time --  Standardized theology, written and fiercely defended by each and every religion as the utter and only truth, contains very specific descriptions of the characteristics and desires of their particular God.  IF you hold the opinion that there is probably a God of some sort, but you wish to avoid strict adherence to any one dogma in particular, preferring instead to forge a personal definition of exactly what God means to you as an individual – and if you find many of the concepts and definitions and descriptions of God offered by the various theologies to either be obvious nonsense or to fall firmly into the realm of the unknowable – Then you are, like it or not, by definition an AGNOSTIC.



I understand what you are saying, and others have said similar comments.  I will tell you I am a Christian, I adhere to a belief that God exists.  Whether or not I adhere to the "traditional" dogma is another topic.  Again, and it comforts me a little to know that men far more intelligent than I am have turned over this very question, came to logical conclusions (open theism, etc.), and remained in their faith.

So, it is a good thing that you started this thread.  I did a ton of research in a short time to see if there was any relevance to my thoughts on this in both the Bible (yes) and in Christian philosophy (yes).

But, there are systems of belief where God's existence does not logically rule out the fact of free will, they are not "traditional."  Or, I am completely wrong, and the Calivinists got it right......but I do believe in God.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 14, 2012)

Four said:


> Depending on the religion it could be any number of rules... it doesn't really mater.
> 
> Lets assume i'm god in this scenario and the rule is to hop on one leg twice a week for 15 minutes.
> 
> You might think it silly and not want to do it... so you lie, or say you did, or only spent 12 minutes. But I would know, because i'm all knowing! So you cant get away with that!



But that is not what the God I believe in is all about (punishment). He is about mercy and grace. Granted that humans have gotten this all wrong for a long time, in His name (crusades, stonings, persecution).

It is not about rules that you follow to keep from punishment. No, not at all. It is about Grace.


----------



## jmharris23 (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> But that is not what the God I believe in is all about (punishment). He is about mercy and grace. Granted that humans have gotten this all wrong for a long time, in His name (crusades, stonings, persecution).
> 
> It is not about rules that you follow to keep from punishment. No, not at all. It is about Grace.



Yep


----------



## Four (Mar 15, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> I still don't think the child should be trying to figure out a way around doing something they could get punished for. That's my point.
> 
> Are you a moral person if you're trying to figure out how you can get away with doing something that goes against the rules....let's use USA laws, or like you said parental laws. The fact that the child is trying to get away with something that is a rule, is not being taught how to be moral if someone is telling the child how to NOT abide by the rules.
> 
> ...



Grr. you keep going off into left field!

The dialog had nothing to do with morals, simply one party attempting to control another party. I assume you've already understood my point that if the enforcer is perceived as all knowing, than it makes it is more likely that someone will follow the rules.


----------



## Four (Mar 15, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> But that is not what the God I believe in is all about (punishment). He is about mercy and grace. Granted that humans have gotten this all wrong for a long time, in His name (crusades, stonings, persecution).
> 
> It is not about rules that you follow to keep from punishment. No, not at all. It is about Grace.



I'm just going to leave, this is so pointless. I haven't met a christian besides JB0704 that can escape there dogma for a second and conceptualize.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 15, 2012)

Four said:


> I'm just going to leave, this is so pointless. I haven't met a christian besides JB0704 that can escape there dogma for a second and conceptualize.



See ya.


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 15, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> If we don't have free will how can we continue to argue about it? Why would God have planned this wee little argument we are having right now?



Sorry Art, I just noticed this question. My answer would be "for good".


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Sorry Art, I just noticed this question. My answer would be "for good".



For good? What's it gonna change? help?


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 15, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> For good?


Yes. All things work together for good.


> What's it gonna change?


I don't know.


> help?


Not sure what you are asking here.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 15, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes. All things work together for good.
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> Not sure what you are asking here.



Someone ask why we are having this debate....you said 'for good'.......I know all things work together for good verse...but that's for believers. Not unbelievers....why do you think these threads work together for good, when some are already predestined to not be saved. Doesn't matter for us who are saved, to debate this...we are saved. The people I'm worried about are the unsaved, and if they are not chosen to be saved, what good does this debate do?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 15, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Yes. All things work together for good.
> 
> I don't know.
> 
> Not sure what you are asking here.



Another vote for "I don't know how it works but I know it does".


----------



## gemcgrew (Mar 15, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Another vote for "I don't know how it works but I know it does".



I wasn't asked "how does it work". I was asked "what is it going to change".


----------



## Asath (Mar 16, 2012)

“We demonstrated, and I admitted, that the concept of omnipotent is impossible . . . . . This leads me to believe that the word, from a theological perspective, means that which is possible.”   Methinks you wish to redefine for the purposes of propping up an argument that has no merit – “Omnipotent, adj. 1. Almighty or infinite in power.  2. Having unlimited authority or power.”  You don’t get to think about or define what is ‘possible’ in the face of the definition of the God of Christianity as Omnipotent.  By attempting to do so you impose limits, which cannot be imposed by a mere human.  If you doubt that such omnipotence is conceivable as a reality then you are in good company, but do not dither in some equally fantastical middle ground by saying, effectively – ‘yeah, but omnipotence is limited to the things I think it is limited to . . . ‘ – that is rather an odd position, and sort of self-negating.

“Do you believe certain actions / thoughts are inherently evil? Can we at least agree on that?”  Nope.  Not in a theological context.  The God of religion makes it a sin, condemning you for all eternity, if you, as a Believer, see a man in need and do not stoop to help.  If you can help, and do not, then you are a callous sinner with no compassion, not deserving of your place in eternity.  But this same God CAN help, if He is as proposed, in all cases, and deliberately does not.  People throughout the World, man, woman and child, suffer and starve and die in horrendous circumstances absent the help of other people.  If you, with limited resources and limited abilities, can be condemned for not helping, how can this God not be condemned a thousand-fold for having unlimited abilities and not helping either?  Theology can make any excuse it wants for this lack, but in truth it casts its own God as far more evil than they, and seems not to see the problem inherent in the dogma.

“I will tell you I am a Christian, I adhere to a belief that God exists. Whether or not I adhere to the "traditional" dogma is another topic.”  Here’s the problem with that idea – Believers who want to soften the old dogmas of their belief system by distancing themselves from the unpleasant results of those beliefs tend to take refuge with the Agnostics, rationalizing that certain things just can’t be known, while at the same time keeping one foot in the door with the Theists, but only as concerns the pleasant results of that particular dogma.  Perhaps now you understand the failure of the whole ‘for better or worse’ part of the marriage vow – folks only want the ‘better’ part, and when the ‘worse’ part comes to visit they run like cowards.  If you are a ‘Believer,’ you are either in or out with your belief system – if you wish to redefine it for your own personal needs and desires that is fine, just don’t keep pretending to adhere when you simply, by admission, do not.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 16, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> Agreed, but what you will find and why this thread will most likely get locked, is that a freewiller will fight tooth and nail for what they treasure most. Something they did of their own free will that assures them of their salvation. IMO



wow as I've read back, I'm surprised at the folks you agree with and they agree with you, too.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 16, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Another vote for "I don't know how it works but I know it does".



Well I'm happy you agree with gems....perhaps he can lead you to Christ? oh never mind, you're predestined, and that saddens me....but I'll keep trying because I don't believe you are predestined to perish. I believe everyone can change, I know the very second that I changed.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> wow as I've read back, I'm surprised at the folks you agree with and they agree with you, too.



Gemccrew's position is consistent, and logically defensible in the context of this thread.  I do not agree with him, but admire his willingness to defend his beliefs.


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 16, 2012)

Asath said:


> If you are a ‘Believer,’ you are either in or out with your belief system – if you wish to redefine it for your own personal needs and desires that is fine, just don’t keep pretending to adhere when you simply, by admission, do not.



Ok, I'm in.  I disagree with many points of a traditional belief system.  That does not mean I am not a believer.  Look around your community.  How many "brands" of Christians do you see?  They all have different approaches, but in the end, they identify as believers in Jesus.  That is what I am....a believer in Jesus.

I only admitted to the fact that omnipotent is an impossible concept because unlimited power would limit power....can God build a rock so big he can't pick it up?  Yes, then he is not-omnipotent.  No, then he is not omnipotent.  There is no way the idea works logically.  That leads me to think there is a way of defining the concept of "all powerful" within the boundaries of the possible.  But, to get turned into logical knots trying to defend a word is, well, ridiculous.


----------



## Four (Mar 16, 2012)

past couple posts made me think of this.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 16, 2012)

gemcgrew said:


> I wasn't asked "how does it work". I was asked "what is it going to change".



So do you know how it works?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 16, 2012)

JB0704 said:


> Gemccrew's position is consistent, and logically defensible in the context of this thread.  I do not agree with him, but admire his willingness to defend his beliefs.



I admire everyone for posting their position, and standing firmly on what they believe.


----------



## Asath (Mar 16, 2012)

The whole, “Can god make a rock that He can’t lift?” thing is a rhetorical question from Philosophy 101, meant to illustrate the absurdity of the concept of omnipotence.  But --  once having cast aside that idea as actually absurd, which it is, the powers of this God that has been defined with that term become circumscribed, and new ideas need to be forthcoming to justify a God as Creator and Savior that now has limited powers.

Believing in Jesus is all well and good.  But believing in Jesus as the representative of, and as wholly part of, a power that has no limits becomes a little difficult.  To me, as a firm Atheist, believing in Jesus is no different in substance than believing in Gandhi or Martin Luther King or the Buddha – the man, as described, was a charismatic leader and Rabbi who went against the established order, offered many valuable lessons and examples, and paid for resisting the establishment with his life.  That a cult would arise around such a figure is hardly a surprise, and that such a cult, like any that gain power and influence, would eventually grow to take their own turn at becoming heavy-handed, abusive persecutors is also no surprise.  Humans are like that, and have always been.  The abuses of the ‘disciples’ takes nothing away from the teachings of the man.

The point of separation, for me, is when the good works and good teachings of a man such as Jesus is described to have been get elevated into claims of the supernatural and powers that we know do not exist, the better to whip ignorant mobs into frenzies of either blind fealty or warlike eliminations of disagreement.  Like all religions, especially the few monotheistic ones, this is what has happened over the course of history – a simple man with a good message has had that message perverted into messianic ritualism that aims to eliminate any who fail to see the offered ‘Light.’  

Where’s the problem with somebody just saying – “Hey, y’know, the fella was just a fella, but he was one with some darned good ideas for cleaning up some of the mess he was born into, and we could do a lot worse, even today, than to pay attention to his thoughts?”  Which part of the good portions of the teachings required that they be woven inextricably into the whole cloth of a vengeful supernatural power, and be presented as part of an already existing control mechanism that had no merit and was entirely fear-based?  

If the teachings of Jesus can stand on their merits, and do not need a God to punish or coerce, then what is wrong with keeping it that simple?  You could, then, just say – “He was a pretty smart guy, I like his ideas, and I believe that he was right, so I’ll follow that example.”  Imagine the good uses that could be made with all of the money and buildings and authority positions that the religions command if we took the infinite and supernatural out of it, and just fired those self-interested empire-building control freaks and acted of our own accord, simply because we Believe that the concepts embodied by Jesus were correct ones.

Or would that be too easy?


----------



## JB0704 (Mar 17, 2012)

Asath said:


> The whole, “Can god make a rock that He can’t lift?” thing is a rhetorical question from Philosophy 101, meant to illustrate the absurdity of the concept of omnipotence.  But --  once having cast aside that idea as actually absurd, which it is, the powers of this God that has been defined with that term become circumscribed, and new ideas need to be forthcoming to justify a God as Creator and Savior that now has limited powers.
> 
> Believing in Jesus is all well and good.  But believing in Jesus as the representative of, and as wholly part of, a power that has no limits becomes a little difficult.  To me, as a firm Atheist, believing in Jesus is no different in substance than believing in Gandhi or Martin Luther King or the Buddha – the man, as described, was a charismatic leader and Rabbi who went against the established order, offered many valuable lessons and examples, and paid for resisting the establishment with his life.  That a cult would arise around such a figure is hardly a surprise, and that such a cult, like any that gain power and influence, would eventually grow to take their own turn at becoming heavy-handed, abusive persecutors is also no surprise.  Humans are like that, and have always been.  The abuses of the ‘disciples’ takes nothing away from the teachings of the man.
> 
> ...



Asath, I enjoyed your post.  And, you and I agree on many, many, points here.  I started seperating it out, and responding per paragraph, but I think we will have to let our differences be and I hope you understand that we see a lot of the same things within the faith, and it appears neither of us blame Jesus for it, we just disagree on the supernatural stuff.  I enjoy the dialogue and debate.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2012)

Asath said:


> The whole, “Can god make a rock that He can’t lift?” thing is a rhetorical question from Philosophy 101, meant to illustrate the absurdity of the concept of omnipotence.  But --  once having cast aside that idea as actually absurd, which it is, the powers of this God that has been defined with that term become circumscribed, and new ideas need to be forthcoming to justify a God as Creator and Savior that now has limited powers.
> 
> Believing in Jesus is all well and good.  But believing in Jesus as the representative of, and as wholly part of, a power that has no limits becomes a little difficult.  To me, as a firm Atheist, believing in Jesus is no different in substance than believing in Gandhi or Martin Luther King or the Buddha – the man, as described, was a charismatic leader and Rabbi who went against the established order, offered many valuable lessons and examples, and paid for resisting the establishment with his life.  That a cult would arise around such a figure is hardly a surprise, and that such a cult, like any that gain power and influence, would eventually grow to take their own turn at becoming heavy-handed, abusive persecutors is also no surprise.  Humans are like that, and have always been.  The abuses of the ‘disciples’ takes nothing away from the teachings of the man.
> 
> ...



How is 5 paragraphs easy?


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 17, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> How is 5 paragraphs easy?




Not a big fan of the readin' n writin'?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 17, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> Not a big fan of the readin' n writin'?



When someone, anyone, not just Asath rambles on about how they got to their opinion, or perhaps how I got to mine, for that long, I am going to pass on getting involved in the conversation.

Ramble is not the best word for this example, Asath is a fine writer.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 18, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> When someone, anyone, not just Asath rambles on about how they got to their opinion, or perhaps how I got to mine, for that long, I am going to pass on getting involved in the conversation.
> 
> Ramble is not the best word for this example, Asath is a fine writer.



But not without leaving a tidbit of sarcasm...

Deeper discussion takes effort.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> But not without leaving a tidbit of sarcasm...
> 
> Deeper discussion takes effort.



My sarcasm is not subtle, you will know when it happens.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 18, 2012)

What is much more valuable is your well articulated, educated and well thought out responses.  I attempt only to solicit them, and to gently persuade you to be involved in this discussion.  I know you have much to contribute on this one.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 18, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> What is much more valuable is your well articulated, educated and well thought out responses.  I attempt only to solicit them, and to gently persuade you to be involved in this discussion.  I know you have much to contribute on this one.



Sniff sniff. Smells like sarcasm?


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 19, 2012)

Not at all.
I find it good to have the comments of an educated scientist who is a believer.  It gives me some perspective on how one manages their faith based beliefs in conjunction with scientific knowns.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 19, 2012)

Asath said:


> If the teachings of Jesus can stand on their merits, and do not need a God to punish or coerce, then what is wrong with keeping it that simple?  You could, then, just say – “He was a pretty smart guy, I like his ideas, and I believe that he was right, so I’ll follow that example.”  Imagine the good uses that could be made with all of the money and buildings and authority positions that the religions command if we took the infinite and supernatural out of it, and just fired those self-interested empire-building control freaks and acted of our own accord, simply because we Believe that the concepts embodied by Jesus were correct ones.
> 
> Or would that be too easy?



If we could ever get there the world would be a much better place.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 19, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> Not at all.
> I find it good to have the comments of an educated scientist who is a believer.  It gives me some perspective on how one manages their faith based beliefs in conjunction with scientific knowns.



It should be method. Knowns is a common misconception, even (especially) among scientists.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 19, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> It should be method. Knowns is a common misconception, even (especially) among scientists.



Rumsfield stated it much better than I.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 19, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> Rumsfield stated it much better than I.



Had to look it up, that is a good one!

"There are known knowns. These are things we know that we know. There are known unknowns. That is to say, there are things that we know we don't know. But there are also unknown unknowns. There are things we don't know we don't know."
Donald Rumsfeld


Read more: http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/d/donaldrums148142.html#ixzz1pcM2U8Zg


----------



## Asath (Mar 19, 2012)

“It should be method.”

This rather begs one to ask the question – By which method has it been determined that free-will (the ability to act out of choice, against the will and design of a God who is defined as omnipotent and omniscient), is merely another attribute that was ‘given’ by this same God to His Creation?

Has there been an empirical or rigidly methodological test that this assertion has been put to?  I realize that the same problem applies to the design of any such test – that in a deterministic universe the test is already anticipated, and that trying to apply such a test, if designed by free-will, becomes a bit like Schrodinger’s Cat or the Copenhagen Interpretation, but since I agree that it SHOULD be a method, I was wondering if anyone has ever proposed or implemented one?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 19, 2012)

Asath said:


> “It should be method.”
> 
> This rather begs one to ask the question – By which method has it been determined that free-will (the ability to act out of choice, against the will and design of a God who is defined as omnipotent and omniscient), is merely another attribute that was ‘given’ by this same God to His Creation?
> 
> Has there been an empirical or rigidly methodological test that this assertion has been put to?  I realize that the same problem applies to the design of any such test – that in a deterministic universe the test is already anticipated, and that trying to apply such a test, if designed by free-will, becomes a bit like Schrodinger’s Cat or the Copenhagen Interpretation, but since I agree that it SHOULD be a method, I was wondering if anyone has ever proposed or implemented one?



No such method or test exists, that I know of. Inherently it would be inadequate. The illogical cannot be tested by logic.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 19, 2012)

Are you stating the idea of "free will" as given to creation by the creator is illogical?


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 21, 2012)

WTM45 said:


> Are you stating the idea of "free will" as given to creation by the creator is illogical?



Given by an omniscient creator, yes.


----------



## WTM45 (Mar 22, 2012)

Why do so many place their belief in the illogical?
Hmmmmmmm....


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 22, 2012)

Logic is merely a language we use to describe things. It does not lead one to truth.

It is easy to win an arguement when you control all the givens. Logic is that control.


----------



## ambush80 (Mar 22, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Logic is merely a language we use to describe things. It does not lead one to truth.
> 
> It is easy to win an arguement when you control all the givens. Logic is that control.



So you're OK that _you're_ truth is the benchmark?


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 23, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> If we could ever get there the world would be a much better place.



Yeah it's gettin' better and better as it is now, ain't it? 40 yrs ago abortion was illegal, then it became legal at 14 weeks, then it became legal at full term because embryos are parasites......hey I know 2 year olds that couldn't live without being a parasite, depending totally on it's mama (parasite) The lower we go the much better of a place it will be depending on morals, that go straight down hill, every year.  You'll get there............glad i'll be gone, when we start killing children at 2 yrs old, like they do in china. 

Do whatcha do.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 23, 2012)

ambush80 said:


> So you're OK that _you're_ truth is the benchmark?



And I suppose you believe your truth is the benchmark....yay or nay?  sheesh...what's the difference.


----------



## Four (Mar 23, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> Logic is merely a language we use to describe things. It does not lead one to truth.
> 
> It is easy to win an arguement when you control all the givens. Logic is that control.



Logic is a ruleset that we can use to discover truth, nobody 'controls' logic, logic is reality. Some might have a more firm grasp on the knowledge, but certainly doesn't control it any more than a physicist controls physics.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 23, 2012)

mtnwoman said:


> Yeah it's gettin' better and better as it is now, ain't it? 40 yrs ago abortion was illegal, then it became legal at 14 weeks, then it became legal at full term because embryos are parasites......hey I know 2 year olds that couldn't live without being a parasite, depending totally on it's mama (parasite) The lower we go the much better of a place it will be depending on morals, that go straight down hill, every year.  You'll get there............glad i'll be gone, when we start killing children at 2 yrs old, like they do in china.
> 
> Do whatcha do.



What? Can anybody make sense of this for me? Where in the heck did killing babies come from?


----------



## Four (Mar 23, 2012)

TheBishop said:


> What? Can anybody make sense of this for me? Where in the heck did killing babies come from?



This is what she's doing

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope

Edit: its similar to when fundamentalists argue that if gay marriage is legalized we will also eventually legalize pedophilia and bestiality.


----------



## TheBishop (Mar 23, 2012)

Four said:


> This is what she's doing
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
> 
> Edit: its similar to when fundamentalists argue that if gay marriage is legalized we will also eventually legalize pedophilia and bestiality.



It detracts from the overall discussion.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 23, 2012)

Four said:


> Logic is a ruleset that we can use to discover truth, nobody 'controls' logic, logic is reality. Some might have a more firm grasp on the knowledge, but certainly doesn't control it any more than a physicist controls physics.



I disagree.

_Meriam Webster online:

1 a (1): a science that deals with the principles and criteria of validity of inference and demonstration : the science of the formal principles of reasoning (2): a branch or variety of logic <modal logic> <Boolean logic> (3): a branch of semiotics; especially: syntactics (4): the formal principles of a branch of knowledge b (1): a particular mode of reasoning viewed as valid or faulty (2): relevance, propriety c: interrelation or sequence of facts or events when seen as inevitable or predictable d: the arrangement of circuit elements (as in a computer) needed for computation; also: the circuits themselves 


2: something that forces a decision apart from or in opposition to reason <the logic of war> _

No where in this definition is the "Truth" mentioned.

Logic IS a science. Science is a language we use to describe things. The rules of logic (and science) are created by man.

It is just a language.


----------



## Ronnie T (Mar 23, 2012)

ted_BSR said:


> I disagree.
> 
> _Meriam Webster online:
> 
> ...




I agree.  Logic is like the handful of coins in your pocket.
(Yours most likely isn't going to be the same as mine).


----------



## Asath (Mar 24, 2012)

“Logic is like the handful of coins in your pocket.”

We seem to have a disconnect here --  First of all, the topic at hand, in this thread, is free-will. I ask if you have the ability to act against the design of the God that religion proposes, or if you do not, and cannot, by the very definition of that God.  It was a very simple question, for a believer.

Second, Logic, in case nobody was in class that day, is not a set of thoughts or facts or conclusions – it has been entertaining to watch the various ideas develop, and then verify themselves, but  . . . 

Logic is a METHOD of thinking.  It is not a thought unto itself.  Logic is the method of the analysis of a thought.  Each proposition, in the sequence of thinking, needs to be validated, independently, PRIOR to the conclusion.  Logic is an endless sequence of If: Then propositions, each needing to prove legitimacy by the simple demonstration that the conclusion MUST follow the premise, and can have no other outcome.  Proposing an outcome that is not a necessary result of the original premise is deemed – ‘illogical.’  Proposing a premise that is in and of itself assumptive and unproven, then reaching conclusions on that basis, is also deemed illogical.  So, you need to start with a single solid and irrefutable fact (the premise), in order to try on a ‘logical’ argument towards one’s conclusion.  Anything less refutes itself right out of the gate, and cannot stand up to the rigors of intelligent thought.

But, I guess I’ll have to concede the point that free-will allows for poor thinking by the very nature of it, and perhaps it will be proposed next that concensus gentium reveals the flaw of logical thinking, since it seems to be so rare . . .


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 24, 2012)

Asath said:


> “Logic is like the handful of coins in your pocket.”
> 
> We seem to have a disconnect here --  First of all, the topic at hand, in this thread, is free-will. I ask if you have the ability to act against the design of the God that religion proposes, or if you do not, and cannot, by the very definition of that God.  It was a very simple question, for a believer.
> 
> ...



Yes, free-will exists. God's omniscience does not prevent it. He knows what you will do, he knows he will not prevent it. Knowing the outcome does not mean he is pulling our strings.

You were doing great on your logic description until you got to the part highlighted in blue. You jumped out of logic and into intelligence. The two, do not always go hand in hand. Was Descartes intelligent? Was he logical?

Do you believe the concensus gentium even exists? Maybe I didn't get your point about that.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 24, 2012)

Four said:


> This is what she's doing
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slippery_slope
> 
> Edit: its similar to when fundamentalists argue that if gay marriage is legalized we will also eventually legalize pedophilia and bestiality.



That was not my intention to distract. Someone said things are getting better.....and I just explained how I couldn't see things getting better.

I think I'll go on a watch and every time one of y'all even vaguely get off topic I'll call you on it.....nah just kiddin' I don't have time for that.

Yeah things are getting better if you wanna consider morality is slidding down that slippery slope so that everyone can do what they want to do and no one calls it immoral.

Did you know that in some countries that allow gay marriage, the age of consent has been lowered to 14, since y'all brought that up.

Would you like for someone older than your 14yo to do anything they want to to them and it be ok because of the age of consent?....and there won't be a darn thing you can do about your 14 yo daughter being raped by a 24 yo? How's that making anything better?  I've watched things go down hill much longer than y'all have, and it ain't gettin' better.


----------



## Asath (Mar 25, 2012)

Unfortunately, the consensus gentium is what got all of us into this mess to begin with.  There is really no denying that, if anyone has read even a cursory review of human history.  And you are right that logic and intelligence are not necessarily parallel things, given that even highly intelligent folks often think and behave illogically.  But logic, as a construct, still exists outside of one’s feelings about anything at all, and demands a rigor that negates emotions and beliefs, requiring that each and every proposition put forward be subject to verifiability.  Simply putting forward the contention that ‘IF the Moon is made of Cheese, then the following thoughts must be true,’ will not earn any points.  A faulty premise, it must be admitted, will lead to faulty conclusions.

So, IF –“God's omniscience does not prevent it (free-will). He knows what you will do, he knows he will not prevent it. Knowing the outcome does not mean he is pulling our strings;”  

THEN it cannot follow that a person can act outside of the plan that omniscience provided.  If your actions are known before the act (omniscience), then you truly have no freedom of will – you are then merely an experimental lab rat in a maze of someone else’s design.  AND, If He knows what you will do, and does not, in this omniscient plan, choose to prevent the atrocious, then there is no conclusion that can be drawn OTHER than that He is pulling our strings for the sheer entertainment value of seeing just what we’ll actually do.  For the sheer fun of punishing those who fail to heed His Words (whatever those words might have been, depending on just who you ask on any given day).  

Would anyone actually submit that this sort of thing is logical, under any interpretation?

And THEN, in the same breath, state aloud that THEY, alone, know which of the Words are the TRUE Words, and which of the Words are false?  Would one not, under the idea that HE has given you free-will which you may exercise at your peril, have already provided the FALSE words, through this omniscience idea, and then failed to prevent one from following THOSE?  

In such an environment, how exactly does one decide that they are right, and everyone else is wrong?  The entire concept cancels itself, internally.

It is not possible to propose an Omniscient God, who knows your every thought before you even think it, alongside a Punishing God who will condemn those same thoughts if they don’t meet His standards.  

Your free-will is exactly that – free for you to exercise as you see fit, or it is known ahead of time, and is thus no longer your own.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 25, 2012)

Asath said:


> Unfortunately, the consensus gentium is what got all of us into this mess to begin with.  There is really no denying that, if anyone has read even a cursory review of human history.  And you are right that logic and intelligence are not necessarily parallel things, given that even highly intelligent folks often think and behave illogically.  But logic, as a construct, still exists outside of one’s feelings about anything at all, and demands a rigor that negates emotions and beliefs, requiring that each and every proposition put forward be subject to verifiability.  Simply putting forward the contention that ‘IF the Moon is made of Cheese, then the following thoughts must be true,’ will not earn any points.  A faulty premise, it must be admitted, will lead to faulty conclusions.
> 
> So, IF –“God's omniscience does not prevent it (free-will). He knows what you will do, he knows he will not prevent it. Knowing the outcome does not mean he is pulling our strings;”
> 
> ...



I have not stated this. In fact, numerous times I have stated that I do not KNOW, but that I believe. I am not so closeminded to think ONLY I have the answers. In fact, I have stated numerous times,"I don't know".

And, I do not know why you insist on putting words in my mouth and lumping me into a category you created in order to better refute my beliefs.

You have stated in the above post, that YOU know, and that you cannot be wrong. So, pleased to meet you pot, I am the kettle.


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 25, 2012)

I believe in free will. Some Atheist believe in free will. If you don't believe in free will then stop arguing with these Atheist, they didn't have a choice. Just like all the people who haven't been chosen to go to Heaven. Stop blaming and praising people, it wasn't their choice. Stop eating healthy & making wise decisions, their not your decisions.
Now whether this is logical, I don't care.


----------



## mtnwoman (Mar 25, 2012)

Artfuldodger said:


> I believe in free will. Some Atheist believe in free will. If you don't believe in free will then stop arguing with these Atheist, they didn't have a choice. Just like all the people who haven't been chosen to go to Heaven. Stop blaming and praising people, it wasn't their choice. Stop eating healthy & making wise decisions, their not your decisions.
> Now whether this is logical, I don't care.



Exactly!


----------



## Asath (Mar 26, 2012)

Ted—please forgive my poor communication skills – I DID lump your own responses into the cesspool of the standardized dogma, and that was unfair, since I responded less to you than to the dogma itself.  I apologize for that.  I did not, to be equally fair, state that I DO know – my intention was to defuse the idea that has been bandied about here that ‘Logic’ is something other than a method, and my attempt to make that point was pretty ham-handed and was not meant personally.  We all strive for clarity, but sometimes miss that goal by miles. Mea Culpa.

And Dodger – I’m not arguing against free-will.  I’m arguing against the idea of a free-will that was ‘granted’ by a deity that already knew that such a ‘gift’ was no gift at all – but merely another part of the  ‘Divine Plan.’  It cannot be both.  If one puts forward the contention that your ability to choose your own path is not actually an ability, but a ‘God-Given’ predestination, and further puts forward the contention that this illusory ‘Gift’ that was provided is merely a means by which you are tested – to see if you will make the ‘right’ choice – then you have placed yourself in the role of a lab animal, who did not design the maze, have no real control over the outcome, and thus have no personal responsibility if you accidentally take a wrong turn.  You can’t be held liable, in this scenario that is proposed, if your freedom is not a given, but is rather a ‘gift.’  Which part of your freedom is your own if such a freedom was provided, rather than natural to you, and if the choices you will make with such freedom are also already known?  Can anyone honestly propose a deity with such a sick sense of humor?


----------



## Artfuldodger (Mar 26, 2012)

Asath said:


> And Dodger – I’m not arguing against free-will.  I’m arguing against the idea of a free-will that was ‘granted’ by a deity that already knew that such a ‘gift’ was no gift at all – but merely another part of the  ‘Divine Plan.’  It cannot be both.  If one puts forward the contention that your ability to choose your own path is not actually an ability, but a ‘God-Given’ predestination, and further puts forward the contention that this illusory ‘Gift’ that was provided is merely a means by which you are tested – to see if you will make the ‘right’ choice – then you have placed yourself in the role of a lab animal, who did not design the maze, have no real control over the outcome, and thus have no personal responsibility if you accidentally take a wrong turn.  You can’t be held liable, in this scenario that is proposed, if your freedom is not a given, but is rather a ‘gift.’  Which part of your freedom is your own if such a freedom was provided, rather than natural to you, and if the choices you will make with such freedom are also already known?  Can anyone honestly propose a deity with such a sick sense of humor?[/QUOTE
> Yes i understand your point, it would be an oxymoron. You either have a choice or you don't. If you don't have a choice, what's the point in Christianity or any religion for that matter. Lot's of religions with fate/predestination though.


----------



## ted_BSR (Mar 26, 2012)

Asath said:


> Ted—please forgive my poor communication skills – I DID lump your own responses into the cesspool of the standardized dogma, and that was unfair, since I responded less to you than to the dogma itself.  I apologize for that.  I did not, to be equally fair, state that I DO know – my intention was to defuse the idea that has been bandied about here that ‘Logic’ is something other than a method, and my attempt to make that point was pretty ham-handed and was not meant personally.  We all strive for clarity, but sometimes miss that goal by miles. Mea Culpa.




I think we agree on what logic is.
Point taken. And (I think) apology accepted.


----------

