A Pondering of the Peculiar

[Sayre]

Out of curiosity, do you believe in free will at all?

I think to continue this discussion we need to discuss the temporal element... is God in time, or does He see time like we see the horizon. I go with the latter, in which case, God's knowledge is constant over time, and there is no time when He learns.

For clarity, I do not believe God can learn.

 

[46AND2]

Out of curiosity, do you believe in free will at all?

I think to continue this discussion we need to discuss the temporal element... is God in time, or does He see time like we see the horizon. I go with the latter, in which case, God's knowledge is constant over time, and there is no time when He learns.

For clarity, I do not believe God can learn.

I do not believe there is a god limiting my free will, but I have read about some neuroscience experiments that suggest that at least some of our choices are dependent on our chemical and biological makeup. But I haven't studied it enough to know exactly what they are claiming.

I don't have an issue with how you think god sees time...my issue is really for our choices taking precedence over gods knowledge. I don't think your view of God's time resolves that, and that even if it did, would still wind up creating illogical ideas.

 

[bhsmte]

I believe 1 and 2, but I don't believe your conclusion follows. If He is powerful enough to create an infinite number of universes, then one of those universes contains genuine free will that He does not impede simply by knowing what people will choose in advance. I disagree that foreknowledge is the same as predestination.

The whole problem with this, is the speculation in regards to trying so hard to identify the characteristics of a God (if he exists) is really like just throwing darts. One can rely on the bible, but considering the historicity of the book and the contradictions, not sure that is the best road to do so.

This question of foreknowledge and freewill is a tough one. If God has foreknowledge of what everyone will do, it implies God has implanted the actions each person will take ahead of time. Otherwise, how would he have this foreknowledge?

 

[SpyderByte]

The whole problem with this, is the speculation in regards to trying so hard to identify the characteristics of a God (if he exists) is really like just throwing darts. One can rely on the bible, but considering the historicity of the book and the contradictions, not sure that is the best road to do so.

This question of foreknowledge and freewill is a tough one. If God has foreknowledge of what everyone will do, it implies God has implanted the actions each person will take ahead of time. Otherwise, how would he have this foreknowledge?

-blind post-

I can field the foreknowledge/free will question for you bhsmte. Foreknowledge =\= predestined. Since God literally exists both at the beginning and the end, at the same time, He already knows what choices we will make. It doesn't mean He makes them for us, only that He knows what they will be, and the outcomes of them. As for the contradictions, if you make a thread, I'd like to talk about them with you.

 

[bhsmte]

-blind post-

I can field the foreknowledge/free will question for you bhsmte. Foreknowledge =\= predestined. Since God literally exists both at the beginning and the end, at the same time, He already knows what choices we will make. It doesn't mean He makes them for us, only that He knows what they will be, and the outcomes of them. As for the contradictions, if you make a thread, I'd like to talk about them with you.

I appreciate that offer, but I would think this discussion would all hinge on one assuming God exists at the beginning and the end as you state. In fact, any description of God is based on assumptions, as there is no evidence to confirm any descriptions.

I'm not saying anyone is right or anyone is wrong, because if a God exists (which I don't believe on does), everyone is speculating as to his characteristics. In christianity especially, we have absolutely boatloads of differing opinions on the specific characteristics of God, which is why there are so many denominations.

This is the problem one arrives at, when one assumes something first and then tries to backfill the specifics to make the assumption work.

 

[SpyderByte]

I appreciate that offer, but I would think this discussion would all hinge on one assuming God exists at the beginning and the end as you state. In fact, any description of God is based on assumptions, as there is no evidence to confirm any descriptions.

I'm not saying anyone is right or anyone is wrong, because if a God exists (which I don't believe on does), everyone is speculating as to his characteristics. In christianity especially, we have absolutely boatloads of differing opinions on the specific characteristics of God, which is why there are so many denominations.

This is the problem one arrives at, when one assumes something first and then tries to backfill the specifics to make the assumption work.

Well, I accept that you don't believe (I don't like it, as I don't want to see anybody go to hell, but I respect your right to your opinion.) As for the characteristics of God, simply because there are many denominations, doesn't change how He is described in the bible. True, many have morphed Him to suit themselves, but His word describes Him very well. I'll leave our discussion at that then.

 

[Sayre]

I do not believe there is a god limiting my free will, but I have read about some neuroscience experiments that suggest that at least some of our choices are dependent on our chemical and biological makeup. But I haven't studied it enough to know exactly what they are claiming.

I don't have an issue with how you think god sees time...my issue is really for our choices taking precedence over gods knowledge. I don't think your view of God's time resolves that, and that even if it did, would still wind up creating illogical ideas.

I guess I'm trying to get to the heart of why you think that foreknowledge is the same as predestine. I think that is an assumption on your part and I'm honestly scratching my head to figure out why.

The idea that God chose our free will choices for us when He chose the initial conditions is self contradictory.

I've also read some interesting neuroscience... which proposes that many of our thoughts are effectively looking for excuses as to why we did what we did. The brain is backsolving an excuse rather than making a choice.

Anyway, back onto the topic... I think that experience plays a role for me here, and I understand that experience doesn't serve as evidence for you. But for me, I have the experience (or at least the perception) of having free choices to make, and I have the experience (again, a perception) of experiencing a God that asks me to make choices. And so while I can partly argue this from logic, I also must take into account my own experiences.

 

[Sayre]

The whole problem with this, is the speculation in regards to trying so hard to identify the characteristics of a God (if he exists) is really like just throwing darts. One can rely on the bible, but considering the historicity of the book and the contradictions, not sure that is the best road to do so.

This question of foreknowledge and freewill is a tough one. If God has foreknowledge of what everyone will do, it implies God has implanted the actions each person will take ahead of time. Otherwise, how would he have this foreknowledge?

Yeah I don't believe that God implants actions in each person ahead of time. That isn't free will, by definition.

God has knowledge because He can see the future (actually, it isn't future to Him, since He is outside of time, but let's not get sidetracked).

My assertion is that God has granted genuine free will, and that free will cannot be constrained or predestined to do anything, believe anything or choose anything.

 

[Sayre]

This is another reason why Christians should avoid framing God as all-powerful, because I believe He gave up His power to have complete control. He does not have control over free will.

 

[bhsmte]

This is another reason why Christians should avoid framing God as all-powerful, because I believe He gave up His power to have complete control. He does not have control over free will.

The issue here Sayre, is if a God exists this is all speculation, whether God is outside of time or whether he gave up complete control.

There are always going to be issues, when an assumption is made of the existence of something and then an effort is made to backfill an explanation for reality, that reconciles the assumed existence of a God to each person.

 

[Sayre]

The issue here Sayre, is if a God exists this is all speculation, whether God is outside of time or whether he gave up complete control.

There are always going to be issues, when an assumption is made of the existence of something and then an effort is made to backfill an explanation for reality, that reconciles the assumed existence of a God to each person.

I partially agree. This debate, from your perspective, is conditioned on fairly large assumptions, which makes the discussion seem entirely arbitrary.

From my perspective though, as a person who claims to have experienced God, I allow those experiences to colour my understanding of His characteristics / nature / ability. Just like we all do when we interact with others.

I fully acknowledge that this isn't evidence for you, but I brought it up to explain that this debate isn't anywhere near as arbitrary for me as it would appear for you.

The idea of God not being all-powerful is a direct result of logic, and I don't see it as arbitrary at all. I think what is arbitrary is constantly redefining the meaning of "omnipotent" until it means something entirely different to "all powerful" in which case the fundies just need to own up and admit that while they have retained the label, they have moved away from the understanding of all powerful.

I would make a similar logical argument about God being outside of time as well.

I hope this post isn't coming across as snide, I don't think I'm better than you... I just have some questions resolved in my mind so I come to the table with a little more rigidly defined character of God.

x
Alice

 

[Sayre]

In fact, any description of God is based on assumptions, as there is no evidence to confirm any descriptions.

What do you think about logic as a source of evidence?

 

[bhsmte]

I partially agree. This debate, from your perspective, is conditioned on fairly large assumptions, which makes the discussion seem entirely arbitrary.

From my perspective though, as a person who claims to have experienced God, I allow those experiences to colour my understanding of His characteristics / nature / ability. Just like we all do when we interact with others.

I fully acknowledge that this isn't evidence for you, but I brought it up to explain that this debate isn't anywhere near as arbitrary for me as it would appear for you.

The idea of God not being all-powerful is a direct result of logic, and I don't see it as arbitrary at all. I think what is arbitrary is constantly redefining the meaning of "omnipotent" until it means something entirely different to "all powerful" in which case the fundies just need to own up and admit that while they have retained the label, they have moved away from the understanding of all powerful.

I would make a similar logical argument about God being outside of time as well.

I hope this post isn't coming across as snide, I don't think I'm better than you... I just have some questions resolved in my mind so I come to the table with a little more rigidly defined character of God.

x
Alice

If you have had personal experiences that make defining God in the way you do clear, I completely understand and if that works for you, hold onto to it.

Certainly, I am not going to tell you anything you don't know, but there are many that claim personal experiences that would lead them to define God differently, or even those that have had personal experiences of a different God altogether.

 

[46AND2]

I guess I'm trying to get to the heart of why you think that foreknowledge is the same as predestine. I think that is an assumption on your part and I'm honestly scratching my head to figure out why.

The idea that God chose our free will choices for us when He chose the initial conditions is self contradictory.

I've also read some interesting neuroscience... which proposes that many of our thoughts are effectively looking for excuses as to why we did what we did. The brain is backsolving an excuse rather than making a choice.

Anyway, back onto the topic... I think that experience plays a role for me here, and I understand that experience doesn't serve as evidence for you. But for me, I have the experience (or at least the perception) of having free choices to make, and I have the experience (again, a perception) of experiencing a God that asks me to make choices. And so while I can partly argue this from logic, I also must take into account my own experiences.

It isn't the foreknowledge by itself. It's foreknowledge COUPLED WITH the idea that god could create the universe, and hence all of us, exactly how he wanted to. We didn't get to choose which universe was created but are forced to live in the one where god knows you choose apple.

 

[anyathesword]

That violates rule 1 which sayre agreed with. That is, God has foreknowledge of all outcomes.

Of course! Just like if you decided to choose the orange now, God already knew you'd choose that.

Just like your decision now is to not follow God. He knows that.

But you have the free will to choose Him now!!! And He will already know.

 

[Seipai]

Of course! Just like if you decided to choose the orange now, God already knew you'd choose that.

Just like your decision now is to not follow God. He knows that.

But you have the free will to choose Him now!!! And He will already know.

Sorry, but if I know how something will turn out ahead of time there is not free will in the process.

An all knowing God eliminates the possibility of free will. Therefore if anyone goes to hell it is God's fault.

 

[Sayre]

If you have had personal experiences that make defining God in the way you do clear, I completely understand and if that works for you, hold onto to it.

Certainly, I am not going to tell you anything you don't know, but there are many that claim personal experiences that would lead them to define God differently, or even those that have had personal experiences of a different God altogether.

Right - I agree with the weak nature of personal experience as an evidence. However I'd ask you a question - what do you think believers should do with that evidence? It seems dishonest to dismiss it without any evidence to the contrary stronger than the evidence of experience.

I'm not asking for evidence that we can remember wrong (I understand how memories are reconstructed) or how we are susceptible to psychological biases (which I clearly acknowledge we are ALL susceptible to). I'm asking for evidence that specific experiences are wrong. Since you don't have access to them, I'm not sure it's possible.

So what is the most honest thing for me to do with my own experiences?

 

[bhsmte]

What do you think about logic as a source of evidence?

Logic itself is not evidence, it is what you are using to indulge logic, that is the evidence.

An individual, could rationalize a whole host of things as evidence, but only objective evidence, would be something other individuals could relate to.

Granted, there is no real objective evidence for God, so one has to look at the circumstantial evidence and personal experiences to use as their own evidence, to conclude a God exists.

 

[Sayre]

Sorry, but if I know how something will turn out ahead of time there is not free will in the process.

An all knowing God eliminates the possibility of free will. Therefore if anyone goes to hell it is God's fault.

Hi Seipai, do you reject omniscience, or do you claim that free will decisions do not exist for God to know?

 

[bhsmte]

Right - I agree with the weak nature of personal experience as an evidence. However I'd ask you a question - what do you think believers should do with that evidence? It seems dishonest to dismiss it without any evidence to the contrary stronger than the evidence of experience.

I'm not asking for evidence that we can remember wrong (I understand how memories are reconstructed) or how we are susceptible to psychological biases (which I clearly acknowledge we are ALL susceptible to). I'm asking for evidence that specific experiences are wrong. Since you don't have access to them, I'm not sure it's possible.

So what is the most honest thing for me to do with my own experiences?

The only time personal experiences are harmful, is when people use them to cause harm to themselves, to others or to ignore obvious truths in the real world that go against their experiences.

This is why I have always said, if a person believes on faith and it makes them a better person, that they should keep believing on faith.