Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Christian Forums is looking to bring on new moderators to the CF Staff Team! If you have been an active member of CF for at least three months with 200 posts during that time, you're eligible to apply! This is a great way to give back to CF and keep the forums running smoothly! If you're interested, you can submit your application here!
Uh huh. Never said anything besides, but you're squirming away from the basic experience. In his heart, man plans his way. The Lord directs his steps. It seems you're trying to turn God into a puppet master, denying that He made men after His own image. What you imagine providence to be is not how God is restricted to act.
I'm not sure your point here
Down below.
Nope, there's a difference between willingly submitting to God and God pulling all the strings and us just being carried along by His indominable will. Your twist on theology is obvious without you even mentioning it in your objections, and it is not one that honors God as He is by demeaning the image of God in human beings.
God does have indominable will or He wouldn't be God
Human intention is not "a random", and you're confining what is possible for God based on what you can imagine. That's the key issue, you "solve" a tension by landing on one side of it and refusing to accept that while it is impossible for men, God makes all things possible. You diminish God by imagining Him having limited options that you can wrap your head around. You deny that it is possible for God to make autonomous beings, and insist that He must be restricted to pulling every string and leaving no room for men to independently act, thus making God the author of sin. Your theology turns God from a loving father into a despicable tyrant who is ultimately responsible for every act of evil that happens. You don't honor God by restricting Him to only being able to do things that you can imagine.
Told you so
How did I read the post before you finished it? And when I say "your theology" it's because what you have put forth in your claims of "objective reality", as it is quite clear that you adopt a run of the mill monergistic theology that makes a mockery of justice. When I speak of free will, there is nothing theoretical about it. It's based entirely on the experience of making choices of my own volition. You claim you can't find anything corresponding to it, yet who can live as if they don't have free will? So how can we possibly deny it?
*Physical science states that you do not have free will. We don't live as if we have free will.
Physical science doesn't have an opinion on free will, it's a philosophical question. But without free will, there is no ability to do science. At least, there's no way to justify doing science. Because reason requires free will of some sort. It is impossible to live as if we are not actively making choices, to at least as much as it is impossible to live as if the external world is an illusion. The whole argument rests on the idea that we can choose to accept whatever side of the coin has the best arguments/evidence...which is impossible if free will is an illusion.
When was free will proven to be an illusion? The sole basis of the argument against free will is built on it being incompatible with determinism(or indeterminism), so to prove it is an illusion would mean that determinism has been proven. Which if that were true, then we could only accept it as true by happenstance and whatever justification we have for believing as much are unrelated to the true reason which is the exigencies that compel our decisions.
General relativity doesn't negate causal chains, it just limits them to frames of reference. As for things moving according to God's plan and purpose, I see no reason to disagree. But it appears to me that God's plan and purpose is at least partially to create beings with their own ability to reason and make moral evaluations automously, to develop human consciences so that they would turn towards Him of their own volition. A feat that could only be accomplished by God Himself becoming a man and submitting Himself to human injustice.
Bradskii's argument is nothing more than asserting the consequent, it's a form of begging the question(putting the conclusion into the premises) Which is even more laughable since he objects to the reversal of his argument by appealing to the fact that some people argue for compatibilism, since the same objection could be made against his argument as its initial premise implies incompatibilism.
Free will means that you make a decision on something without it being determined by anything. Note the first part of that sentence: 'Free will means that you make a decision...' You can't stand around and wait for something to happen and if It doesn't declare that free will doesn't exist. You have to make a decision.
All you need do is ask 'Why?' to every decision that you make. You wanted to think about things sitting down. Was that a random or purely arbitrary decision? If so then there's no free will involved. Did you make the decision for a reason? Yes? Maybe you realised it was more comfortable thinking about it seated. So that fact that it was more comfortable meant that it was your preference to sit down. It determined your decision. Why didn't you decide to wash the dishes? Because the tv was on and it caught your attention. That determined your action. Or rather lack of action.
The next thing that happened is the tree fell on Jim. The next thing that happened is Jim dead The next thing that happened is...and that is how we are moved to act in this world
Who put that thought in your head?
So what was the cause of his death? (I can't believe I had to ask it, but...).
I don't see this conversation being at all productive. Thanks anyway...
His basic lack of fear in allowing the Random , Evil or chaos is no different than what
The exsistance of evil just isn't a threat to him. It is only a threat to those who wish to go at it all without him.
And in going back to the Matrix films/movies, the only thing the Oracle didn't know or couldn't see past in all of these movies, was only the outcome of the final battle between Neo and agent Smith in reality. Everything else she already knew, and was helping to guide Neo to/towards, and this can be clearly seen in all of the movies. But the fact that she already knew, meant none of them was really choosing anything up to that choice in reality. And this is just simply because the two just simply cannot coexist for any being, in any reality. No being can know but also at the same time not know in reality. It has to be either one or the other in reality. And that is for any being, in any reality.
Neo is the natural rebel in these movies, and like, when he asks the Oracle how he can make the choice if she already knows what he is going to choose in the second movie, and she basically says you can't, and no one can, he is clearly frustrated by this fact throughout the whole thing, or by anyone knowing, and clearly wants to naturally rebel against such things, etc. For example, he sits down, and tells the Oracle "he felt like sitting", to which she just simply says "I know", and probably could have also rolled her eyes behind his back about the whole thing, but Neo is clearly frustrated by this whole free will or not/predestination thing all throughout the movies, being the one who is the proponent of and the one who still always fully holds onto his fully believing in choice throughout the whole thing. But the only thing that even had the possibility of ever being a real choice was only the choice that no one else knew throughout the whole thing, which was only the choice at the end, or the very final outcome of the very final battle between him and agent Smith throughout the whole thing, because it's the only choice no one else ever knew throughout the whole thing. But if anyone else could have known it, then there wouldn't have been a such thing as it being a real true choice throughout the whole thing, because no one can ever know, and yet also not know ever, for anything, etc. And this applies to any and all beings ever, in any reality for anything, etc.
Following the rest of this logic, let's say the Oracle did know the outcome of every single choice by everyone that also included the very final outcome of the very final battle between Neo and agent Smith at the end? And there was never anything she didn't know or couldn't predict or always know the outcome of ever, which would have included knowing the very final outcome of the very final battle between Neo and agent Smith and absolutely everything in between from beginning to end ever at all ever? Would she ever have had any reason to ever "feel" a certain way about any of it at all ever? Or would there have been any single reason at all for her to ever try to manipulate it, or ever interfere or intervene with it at all ever? Would she have ever had any kind of "passions" about it at all ever IOW's? Or would she have ever have had any reasons to ever get or be personally involved in any of it at all ever? Or ever try to ever intervene or interfere with any of it at all ever? Assuming she wasn't ever desiring to ever change it ever I mean? Would she have ever had any reason at all to ever try to be personally involved in any of it at all ever, or ever try to manipulate or interfere or intervene or try to chamge anything in it ever at all ever? And again, especially, if say, she was the one who made it all that way in the.first place, etc. Would she have ever had any kind of reason to ever get personally involved in it ever, or ever try to intervene or interfere or ever try to change any of it at all ever? And then my next question is if this seem like Jesus or God in the OT to you, etc? And then I would ask you "Yes, or No" maybe, etc? Or maybe even if your conclusion was maybe "not really maybe", then I would maybe ask you what you think the answer is? Cause I already know, and have been through all of this already, etc.
Why "requires submission" if submission is the only option?
