Destiny and Free Will

[Quantum Windbag]

Another non expert in theology oversimplifies something he doesn't understand.

Do you want to construct consensus instead of just obstructively saying, "No"?

For all intents and purposes, what I said could have been right and you're just being contrarian.

Consensus is for Pharisees, not for honest people.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says.

Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes all your choices.......

You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.

The issue is not that God makes our choices, it's that they are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology. Only those whose names are in the Book of Life, written from the foundation of the World, will be saved. If our choices are predetermined, how can we have free will?

The theology doesn't work. Either God doesn't exist, or It doesn't interact or even let us become aware of Itself, which would inevitably influence our choices.

What purpose does the universe serve but to provide us with the holy gift of unfettered free will? God could do anything else without using the universe as a smoke screen.

Judeo-Christian theology does not teach determinism.

Your logic only works if you can't read, which leaves me to believe you haven't actually read, which is why I will address the rest of my post to people like you.

For the people that won't read, the Book of Life is the list of people that are judged after the Tribulation. since the Rapture occurs before that happens that means that people whose names are written in that book are saved after the Rapture. That does not in any way prove that determinism is true unless you ignore everything else in the Bible.

 

[daws101]

Despite your lack of understanding of fetal development, babies do not breathe.

sorry chief they do..it's not breathing as such, but it's a working of those muscle groups . the lung expand and contract and expel amniotic fluid.
if they did not do this they would not be able to breath right after birth. so there!

If it's not breathing 'per se' it ain't breathing.

yes it it is, the only difference is little or no air is transferred...you could say it's practice.
then again I get the impression you're a black and white thinker.
for you it's either this or that.
when in reality it's both or neither.

 

[daws101]

What makes you think I would be willing to kill hypothetical innocent people to save my hypothetical family?

where did I say kill innocent people ... nice attempt at a dodge..
so your family is not important enough to kill and die for?

Now you want to make a bomb that only kills one person?

never said that either, still dodging...

 

[daws101]

Honestly, I'd rate them a 100%, and you a 1%. New Advent is pretty much the comprehensive Catholic Church perspective on pretty much any topic, with encyclopedic precision, detail, and follow up. You want to argue with that combined knowledge, fine, I have no problem with that, nor you making an ass out of yourself by trying to discredit the source. You have free will here, as you exhibit. I'd be searching things out more and asking questions, you know, opening some doors and windows, trying to gain in perspective from shared knowledge, that's be, though. There is a perspective, that in matters of salvation, for each of us, the worst battle is internal, not external. You need to search out your own conscience there, and maybe learn to feed it, rather than deny it, or try to enslave it. Just a thought.

fine bit of PR doesn't answer the question though.

Are they biased because they disagree with your total lack of expertise on the subject?

more false assumptions...who is they?
I was talking about this publication New Advent..which by definition is bias as anything published by any group is bias...
as to the other nonsense I never said I was an expert... you answers make it clear that I must know enough about the subject to make you go batshit attempting to keep me from asking question about it or having an opinion on it.

 

[theword]

I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says.

Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes all your choices.......

You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.

The issue is not that God makes our choices, it's that they are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology. Only those whose names are in the Book of Life, written from the foundation of the World, will be saved. If our choices are predetermined, how can we have free will?

The theology doesn't work. Either God doesn't exist, or It doesn't interact or even let us become aware of Itself, which would inevitably influence our choices.

What purpose does the universe serve but to provide us with the holy gift of unfettered free will? God could do anything else without using the universe as a smoke screen.

Judeo-Christian theology does not teach determinism.

Your logic only works if you can't read, which leaves me to believe you haven't actually read, which is why I will address the rest of my post to people like you.

For the people that won't read, the Book of Life is the list of people that are judged after the Tribulation. since the Rapture occurs before that happens that means that people whose names are written in that book are saved after the Rapture. That does not in any way prove that determinism is true unless you ignore everything else in the Bible.

The "Book of Life" is the same thing as Christ, Son of God, Kingdom of God, Kingdom of Heaven, Breath of Life, Life, Eternal Life, Light, Zion, Jacob, Holy Spirit, Word of God, which all mean the invisible creation of our invisible Creator ( Father, God, Savior, King, Master Programmer, etc. ).

 

[daws101]

Where do you get that notion from?

Theological Determinism

Theological determinism comes in two varieties. The first is based on the notion of foreknowledge: if God is an omniscient being, and if omniscience applies to the future (as well as to the past and present), then the future is known by God. But in that case, the future can only be what God knows it to be. No alternatives are possible. If God knows that it is going to rain tomorrow, then, regardless of what the weather forecast might be, it will definitely rain tomorrow. And if God knows that Jerry Falwell will decide to become an atheist sometime next week, then that is what inevitably must happen.

The second kind of theological determinism follows from the concept of divine preordination: if God is the ultimate cause behind everything, then He has preordained all that will ever occur, and once again there can be no deviation from the future's pre-set pattern. The preordination of the future is by definition a kind of determinism, so there is no arguing against it if one accepts the premise. (This is a type of causal determinism; the first kind of theological determinism is not.)

Theological determinism depends, of course, on whether or not God exists. Since there is no evidence for the existence of a supreme being, this kind of determinism is not logically compelling. And even if one accepts God's existence, it does not necessarily follow that God has preordained the future, or that He his omniscient, or that omniscience applies to the future. But for those with orthodox religious views things are not so simple. The notion of foreknowledge, at least, is essential to the orthodox concept of a supreme being. And yet the orthodox also wish to maintain the existence of free will, and thus reject determinism (though there are exceptions which are "orthodox" enough, e.g. Calvinism).

Now, some argue that knowledge of the future does not necessitate the future in any way: I may know that you are going to do x tomorrow, but that does not mean that you aren't freely choosing to do it. Whether or not this is right depends on how strongly we interpret what it means to have knowledge. If knowledge is supposed to imply certainty, then I cannot know that you are going to do x tomorrow unless I can somehow foretell the future. I may have very good reasons to believe that you will do x, and it may turn out that you will do x. But if it was the case that you might not have done x, then I did not really know.

One may of course use the term "knowledge" in a less strict sense in which the above would no longer apply. But when it comes to God's knowledge, as usually understood, there seems no doubt that it ought to be absolutely certain knowledge. God is after all supposed to be infallible.

Another common attempt to resolve the problem of foreknowledge is to claim that God exists outside of time. From this extra-temporal vantage point, God does not know the future beforehand. There is no "before" or "after" for God. Instead, He observes all of existence — past, present and future — as we observe the present. And as a result, His knowledge of the future is not foreknowledge, and so does not conflict with human freedom.

The "outside of time" argument is not easy to analyze because, so far as I can tell, no one knows what it really means to be outside of time. I believe the best way to tackle the argument is to consider how our situation is changed, if at all, on the supposition that God is in fact extra-temporal. God may be outside of time, but we're not. Now, for us the important thing is whether our future is something which is known. Wherever God is, if He knows our future, then from the vantage point of our present selves the future is in fact known. Our situation therefore has not changed in any way. The important thing is not how God possesses knowledge of the future, but that there is such knowledge. And if the future is in fact known, the conclusion that it is determined is unavoidable.

If the foregoing is not completely satisfactory (for as already mentioned the notion of extra-temporality is rather mysterious, so any discussion involving it is open to varying interpretations), there is another argument along the same lines. God, at least on most orthodox views, supposedly interacts with the world. But if there is such interaction with the world, then it must occur at particular points in time. And at those times, from our perspective, God certainly appears to have knowledge of our future.

Since I reject its premises, I do not accept theological determinism (the argument is valid, but not sound). Theological determinism is nevertheless important in that it reveals an inconsistency between the orthodox notions of foreknowledge and free will.
Theological Determinism

I was speaking from a theological standpoint, not the opinion of some 'philsospher' or professor who no doubt hasn't any belief in God. I wouldn't expect you to be able to make the argument from a biblical standpoint, or you can google search and try again if you wish.

are you naturally this stupid or do you work on it?
theology is an opinion..
o·pin·ion [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
noun
1.
a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2.
a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3.
the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
4.
Law. the formal statement by a judge or court of the reasoning and the principles of law used in reaching a decision of a case.
5.
a judgment or estimate of a person or thing with respect to character, merit, etc.: to forfeit someone's good opinion.

 

[daws101]

Can you identify specifically which theology you're referring to?

Theology, 1 : the study of religious faith, practice, and experience; especially : the study of God and of God's relation to the world.

Specific issues are: moral free will; God's possible existence and interaction/non-interaction in the universe and human affairs and the effect that might have on our free will; the Book of Life written from the foundation of the world (universe?) and its implications for free will. The issue of free will is about as theological as it gets. It deals with the source of our moral code (God or our self-awareness), whether God exists, and if so, whether It's interactive or laissez faire.

Christian theology is based in the Bible, what specific scripture are you referring to when you made the statement 'choices are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology'?

Is predestination a biblical teaching?
by Matt Slick

Yes, predestination is biblical. Predestination is the teaching that God has, from all eternity, freely determined whatsoever shall come to pass. We find this in Ephesians 1:11 which says, “also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.” Notice Paul teaches that predestination occurs according to the purpose of God and that God works all things after His will. The "all things" means exactly that, all things.

The word predestination comes from the Greek proorivzw "prooridzo." The word occurs six times in six verses in the New Testament.

Acts 4:28, “to do whatever Your hand and Your purpose predestined to occur.”
Romans 8:29-30, “For whom He foreknew, He also predestined to become conformed to the image of His Son, that He might be the first-born among many brethren; 30 and whom He predestined, these He also called; and whom He called, these He also justified; and whom He justified, these He also glorified.”
1 Corinthians 2:7, “but we speak God’s wisdom in a mystery, the hidden wisdom, which God predestined before the ages to our glory.”
Ephesians 1:5, “He predestined us to adoption as sons through Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the kind intention of His will.”
Ephesians 1:11, “also we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to His purpose who works all things after the counsel of His will.”
By looking at these verses we can see that predestination reveals God's great sovereignty and right to do with His creation as He desires. But also we can see that predestination deals with salvation. Unfortunately, many Christians do not accept the biblical teaching on predestination. Many do not like the idea that God predestines people for salvation, but the fact is the Bible teaches it.

We might say that there are two main views concerning predestination. One is the view that God has foreknowledge; that is, he knew who would choose Him and those are the ones He predestined to salvation. The other idea is held by Calvinists who believe God sovereignly, of His own free will, predestined certain people to be saved, and His choice is not based upon looking into the future to see who would pick Him.

Either way, predestination is found in the Bible and it is a doctrine that we must accept. So, to find which view you think is most biblical, study the above list of verses in their context and see if you think that God predestines according to the expected future human choices or not.
Is Predestination Biblical? | What is Predestination? | Christian Apologetics and Research Ministry
you're running out of dodges..

 

[daws101]

I wish people that wanted to discuss deep theological subjects would read the Bible before they tried to tell me what it says.

Nothing in the Bible contraindicates free will. Let me rephrase that for the intellectually challenged, nothing in the Bible says that God makes all your choices.......

You either have free will, or the Bible is wrong. There is no conflict between the Bible and free will, anyone that tells you differently is lying. Nothing in the Old Testament or the New Testament teaches anything different, which is why it is possible for all men to be saved.

The issue is not that God makes our choices, it's that they are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology. Only those whose names are in the Book of Life, written from the foundation of the World, will be saved. If our choices are predetermined, how can we have free will?

The theology doesn't work. Either God doesn't exist, or It doesn't interact or even let us become aware of Itself, which would inevitably influence our choices.

What purpose does the universe serve but to provide us with the holy gift of unfettered free will? God could do anything else without using the universe as a smoke screen.

Judeo-Christian theology does not teach determinism.

Your logic only works if you can't read, which leaves me to believe you haven't actually read, which is why I will address the rest of my post to people like you.

For the people that won't read, the Book of Life is the list of people that are judged after the Tribulation. since the Rapture occurs before that happens that means that people whose names are written in that book are saved after the Rapture. That does not in any way prove that determinism is true unless you ignore everything else in the Bible.

see post #68

 

[Daktoria]

Another non expert in theology oversimplifies something he doesn't understand.

Do you want to construct consensus instead of just obstructively saying, "No"?

For all intents and purposes, what I said could have been right and you're just being contrarian.

Consensus is for Pharisees, not for honest people.

[MENTION=23420]Quantum Windbag[/MENTION]

What would you think if you said "2+2=4" or "Cat is spelled C-A-T" and someone just said, "No, you're wrong."

Without consensus, people get away with nonsense. You might want to look into this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scholasticism#Scholastic_method

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Do you want to construct consensus instead of just obstructively saying, "No"?

For all intents and purposes, what I said could have been right and you're just being contrarian.

Consensus is for Pharisees, not for honest people.

@Quantum Windbag

What would you think if you said "2+2=4" or "Cat is spelled C-A-T" and someone just said, "No, you're wrong."

Without consensus, people get away with nonsense. You might want to look into this: Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would think they are as crazy as you are, why do you ask?

 

[PainefulTruth]

Christian theology is based in the Bible, what specific scripture are you referring to when you made the statement 'choices are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology'?

Rev. 13:8--And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made—the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.

Wiki: In Christianity and Judaism, the Book of Life (Hebrew: ספר החיים, transliterated Sefer HaChaim; Greek: βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς Biblíon tēs Zōēs) is the book in which God records the names of every person who is destined for Heaven or the World to Come.

It's impossible for it and free will to exist. There is no fate, no "meant to be". If there were such a Book of Life, then God would just create them straight into heaven with the memories of the choices they'd "made". But God would know it's a lie and eventually so would we--we would know that we were phoney souls.

 

[Daktoria]

Consensus is for Pharisees, not for honest people.

@Quantum Windbag

What would you think if you said "2+2=4" or "Cat is spelled C-A-T" and someone just said, "No, you're wrong."

Without consensus, people get away with nonsense. You might want to look into this: Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would think they are as crazy as you are, why do you ask?

...because you said, "No, you're wrong," and I said, "Cat is spelled C-A-T."

What I said isn't crazy, but obstructing consensus like that is crazy...

...so I guess you're teasing me by trying to equivocate. You actually understand what I'm saying, but are just trying to egg me on to see if I understand the free will of language games, so...

...why do I ask?

Yes, I do ask. What would make you think that?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

Christian theology is based in the Bible, what specific scripture are you referring to when you made the statement 'choices are predetermined according to Judeo-Christian theology'?

Rev. 13:8--And all the people who belong to this world worshiped the beast. They are the ones whose names were not written in the Book of Life before the world was made—the Book that belongs to the Lamb who was slaughtered.

Wiki: In Christianity and Judaism, the Book of Life (Hebrew: ספר החיים, transliterated Sefer HaChaim; Greek: βιβλίον τῆς ζωῆς Biblíon tēs Zōēs) is the book in which God records the names of every person who is destined for Heaven or the World to Come.

It's impossible for it and free will to exist. There is no fate, no "meant to be". If there were such a Book of Life, then God would just create them straight into heaven with the memories of the choices they'd "made". But God would know it's a lie and eventually so would we--we would know that we were phoney souls.

You get your theology from Wiki? No wonder you are confused.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

@Quantum Windbag

What would you think if you said "2+2=4" or "Cat is spelled C-A-T" and someone just said, "No, you're wrong."

Without consensus, people get away with nonsense. You might want to look into this: Scholasticism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I would think they are as crazy as you are, why do you ask?

...because you said, "No, you're wrong," and I said, "Cat is spelled C-A-T."

What I said isn't crazy, but obstructing consensus like that is crazy...

...so I guess you're teasing me by trying to equivocate. You actually understand what I'm saying, but are just trying to egg me on to see if I understand the free will of language games, so...

...why do I ask?

Yes, I do ask. What would make you think that?

I did not say you were wrong, I said you oversimplified something you don't understand.

As far as Western religion's interpretation of free will and fate is concerned:

Universal reconciliation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Total depravity - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Catholics believe in the first.

Protestants believe in the second's various forms of election, but ultimately, they all depend on original sin being overcome from the predestination of grace and how this is revealed from "good works". It stems from Martin Luther's reintegration of the Hebrew Bible into the Old Testament, so it stands to merit that Jews believe in the same thing which they confirm in believing they're the chosen people as well as "bashert". Muslims also believe in "qadar".

The big problem with discussing fate is it's circular. It begs the question as to how people would know fate exists in the first place. Those who claim fate might as well not be fated, but are just claiming to be so. Even when they say they "feel it", that doesn't mean their feelings are reliable. They might as well just be spoiled brats or deluded nutcases who are brutally asserting their opinion as valuable.

On the other hand, the problem with discussing free will is opponents can default proponents into enduring them, and thereby say it's fate that they endure opposition. You see this especially when fatalists claim that free will advocates are simply stating their opinion, and manipulate context out of syntax while calling free will advocates dictators in their interpretation of words. Eventually, free will advocates claim their position is just blatantly obvious, and fatalists take those words to justify their own position as well.

Another thing with fate and free will is the "structure versus agency" debate. Some people believe that fate refers to an internal lack of agency to behave oneself. Others believe that fate refers to an external structure that can't be overcome.

There's also the randomness versus self-determination debate. Some people believe that free will refers to an external unpredictability. Other people believe that free will refers to an internal ability to determine oneself.

Anyway, a lot of the debate gets predisposed according to the direction that people approach it in "wanting" it to go.

That very "wanting" could be free willing in people thinking about which way to debate, or it could be fated in being emotionally overloaded toward a way.

Likewise, people approach the debate to represent what they want. Heck, you could have emotionally overloaded people wanting "free will" and thoughtful people wanting "fate" for the sake of their own self-interests in believing that those beliefs will encourage society to go in an interesting direction.

I believe in free will because it is who I am, but most people around me believe in fate because they enjoy getting me to do what they want without consent.

On the side, I guess that explains why I believe most people are stupid.

Another non expert in theology oversimplifies something he doesn't understand.

Want to try and address what I actually said, or do you want to prove me right about your oversimplification and lack of understanding?

 

[Daktoria]

You're begging the question. For all intents and purposes, I already understand. You haven't shown what needs to be understood.

You're actually coming off like a fatalist now too as if fate is just blatantly obvious, and how those who aren't in touch obviously aren't saved.

Whatever.

 

[Quantum Windbag]

You're begging the question. For all intents and purposes, I already understand. You haven't shown what needs to be understood.

You're actually coming off like a fatalist now too as if fate is just blatantly obvious, and how those who aren't in touch obviously aren't saved.

Whatever.

You stated that Catholics believe in universal reconciliation, and that Protestants believe in total depravity, and seem to think that they contradict each other. This is a gross oversimplification of the debate, and it ignores the fact that universal reconciliation is not a teaching of the Catholic Church. Thus I stated that you oversimplified something you do not understand, which you interpreted to mean something else.

Now you are attributing fallacies to me that I am not engaging in.

 

[Daktoria]

The Catholic Church recognizes that people are universally endowed with grace, and it's only if they commit mortal sins that they're condemned. People aren't expected to perform good works to others' satisfaction since grace reveals itself in many different ways, nor can anyone endowed with grace anticipate anyone else's endowment.

Where do you see a problem?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

The Catholic Church recognizes that people are universally endowed with grace, and it's only if they commit mortal sins that they're condemned. People aren't expected to perform good works to others' satisfaction since grace reveals itself in many different ways, nor can anyone endowed with grace anticipate anyone else's endowment.

Where do you see a problem?

And everyone commits moral sins, which means they go to hell if they don't repent. Therefore, they do not believe in universal reconciliation, which is the belief that everyone will be reconciled with God regardless of their state of grace. That alone proves you don't fucking understand what you are talking about, would you like to point out something else you fucking don't understand so I can explain it to you?

 

[Daktoria]

I don't think you understand the difference between mortal and venial sins. :-\