free will, but to what extent?

[atheisticyouth]

hi

i have been thinking, and if god is perfect, all mighty, omnipotent, etc., then that means there is an infinite amount of possibility to what he is capable of, right?

well, first, when god was finished with his creation, he said it was good. if he is infinitly capable of anything, then there wouldnt be any good, there would just be a different level of difficulty to what he creates, or how well suited it is for the problem at hand.

second, if we have free will, then is it really free will? going on the lines of the first paragraph, there would be no extent to what free will is. although, there would have to be an end, for eventually we would be as strong, powerful, smart, (need i say, "free"?) as god? absolutely not. if there is no extent to gods powers, than we really dont have any free will, but are mearly subjects of play and control.

now, for the sceptical, dont say we have free will because you have experienced it, for realistically there is no extent to free will, and unless you are a "god", you have not experienced infinity yourself, have you?

part 2:

as for infinity, it can be argued if there really isnt such thing as infinity in the physical world, but only in the mental, or thought, or imaginary, world. if this is the case, it is a bold generalization for the following reasons:

1) there has to be something along the lines of infinity, for there cant be a beginning, for what was after the beggining of the beggining? or the beggining of the beggining of the beggining, etc.

2) if there isnt anything such as infinity beyond the mental world, then god isnt infinite, therefore isnt real, or is imperfect.


okay, here comes the fun part, (if we havent already gotten there)

it can also be said that god is not physical, but mental. in that case, he is either a figment of immagination, or christianity's god isnt the actual god.

in the latter case, that would mean we have no soul, spirit, or anything of the like. also, it is highly probobly that the god doesnt even promote the benefits of the christian god, ie, no heaven, hell, angels, etc.

to take it one last step further, many christians like to use ocam's razor in their debates, (), which i have despised up until just now;

what is easier to believe, that infinity is possible beyond the mental realm, even though there is logical proof against it

or that there is infact no god, or there is one, just not the christian god.


ps, not that i actually think ocam's razor is a plausable method of reason, but i thought it had some credibility concidering that so many theists refer to non stop.

 

[Ben johnson]

Infinity is a concept founded in the Universe that we understand. This being, FOUR-SPACE --- three spatial dimensions, and time.

There are two ways that spatial position can be bounded; first the curvature of space presents a "circular flow"; thus the boundary being straight linear travel will always return you to your starting point (eventually). Think of it as existing on the surface of a sphere. Locally, it appears flat; but even though you travel in ANY DIRECTION, a straight line will always eventually return you to your starting point.

The other boundary would be "discontinuity" --- for instance, tunnels into HYPERSPACE (or subspace) present EDGES to the Universe. A black hole, for instance, is an EDGE...

In regards to TIME, we are constrained to thinking in terms we understand. But time is mathematically no different from physical space --- thus time is also capable of having BOUNDARIES. Indeed, from HYPERSPACE, there is an orientation that PRESENTS time as a physical dimension. Traversable either FORWARD or BACKWARDS. Now, time being inseparable from space, gravity, energy, etc., it is possible to think of a "BEGINNING POINT" --- the singularity that BEGAN all things. So considering "travelling back to before the Universe began" becomes non-sequitir; there WAS no "before". Can you imagine such a concept? And if there was a TIME when TIME DID NO EXIST (forgive the contradiction), then there also may come a point when TIME CEASES...

Think of it this way --- relativism asserts that time is a function of both gravity and velocity (relative to the "fixed-point"). If the equation for time is:
T' = Tº ( 1 - V²/C²)[sup]-½[/sup], you can see that LIM (T') as velocity V approaches speed-of-light C, is ZERO. With me?

...now, a photon of light is, by definition, moving at velocity C; therefore its time relative to us is ZERO. Can we define time for a photon? And, the most basic principle of optics is based on the FACT that "speed-of-light" DECREASES inside matter, then what of PHOTONS that move through our AIR. Does time therefore acquire an IMAGINARY vector?

In the "photon-case", the photon experiences true infinity; in an instant, all of eternity passes for it --- one instant, a timeless point.

To discuss "free will", of course it exists within certain boundaries. No matter how high I jump, I shall never reach the moon (not without several hundred million $ of rocket fuel and mechanics, or a good anti-grav-unit). Yet it is my choice of what work I do, what clothes I wear, and what god I serve. If the Christian God is REAL, then His essence is LOVE; and true love never demands its own way. Thus I am free to love Him back, or to reject Him. (Though I must do either, on the EARTH...)

Make sense?

Sometimes in discussiong philosophy, we must be cautions that our arguments are not bounded by prior assumptions...

 

[Philosoft]

If the Christian God is REAL, then His essence is LOVE; and true love never demands its own way. Thus I am free to love Him back, or to reject Him. (Though I must do either, on the EARTH...)

Make sense?

No. How do you define "love" apart from God? And how is our decision to accept or reject God in any sense "free" if he uses potentially coercive rewards and punishments for the respective decisions?

Sometimes in discussiong philosophy, we must be cautions that our arguments are not bounded by prior assumptions...

There are always prior assumptions.

 

[Ben johnson]

There are always prior assumptions

But theology is about what was WRITTEN. Can we successfully contend that "salvation is NOT by works"? Certainly --- for that is what Eph2:8 says. No interpretation, simply TRANSLATION.

How do you define "love" apart from God?

That is actually a profound question --- very good! John records (1:4:16) "God IS LOVE". Therefore, love CANNOT be defined apart from God! Does this present a "CATCH-22" (you cannot come to God until you understand love, and you cannot love until you belong to God)? No. Jesus said, "No one comes to Me unkess the Father DRAWS him", and "I will DRAW ALL MEN to Myself" (Both passages, Jn6:44, 12:32, use the same word, "helkuo-draw"). So it seems to indicate that God draws EVERYONE to the point where he/she can receive CHrist.

God in any sense "free" if he uses potentially coercive rewards and punishments for the respective decisions?

Well, you see, here is the dynamic: the "coercive rewards/punishments" are ONLY coercive if you believe in them! Think about it --- if people REALLY BELIEVED that Hell was REAL, would they REJECT GOD? So by definition, one seeks God (and conversely rejects Hell) only through BELIEF. Thus, it is NOT "coercive", because the compulsion to receive Christ results FROM salvation-belief. THere is no such "coercion/compulsion" for those who do not believe...



BTW, there really is no "imaginary component"; because the equation is written with "C", "speed-of-light-in-a-vaccuum". But passing through AIR (or glass or water) does have an interesting effect --- a PARTICLE moving at "C" (say, from radioactive decay), passing through AIR, produces an optical SHOCK-WAVE (just as a super-sonic-plane produces a "sonic-boom"). The summation of all these "shock-waves" manifests as a strange blue glow; "Cerenkov Radiation"...

(If you ever SEE such a glow, run away very fast....)

 

[foolsparade]

Ben johnson;
you write: "if people REALLY BELIEVED that Hell was REAL, would they REJECT GOD?"

I would say that people SHOULD reject God if that were the case. That is a cohersion for those who "claim" to be a Christian, if not then why is ever mentioned? Its not your fault, you didn't write the bible.

 

[atheisticyouth]

the thing is though, if god did exist, christians wouldnt look at the downfalls as much as the benifits. if you believe there is a god, you arent gonna look at the downfalls first of not believing in him, but first the benifits of believing in him.

simply put:

you believe a god exists:


options:

1) have eternal life and happiness in heaven

2) and "burn" in hell


now, 2 is encouraging to make you follow god, but option 1 alone is enough to encourage you to follow.