Free will and God's will

[mattskramer]

God does not intervene, period.

So there is no justice. God is ambivalent. Therefore he is practically irrelevant. Prayers serve no purpose or change the course of events. There is no right or wrong - no explanation as to why bad things happen to good people or why good things happen to bad people. Right?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So there is no justice. God is ambivalent. Therefore he is practically irrelevant. Prayers serve no purpose or change the course of events. There is no right or wrong - no explanation as to why bad things happen to good people or why good things happen to bad people. Right?

Wrong. The faithful and the believers do what they can where they can.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My head hurts ( think I am getting migraines again) so I won't be here to instantly respond to this discussion. Taking a break.

 

[mattskramer]

Wrong. The faithful and the believers do what they can where they can.

So, non-believers help too. That still does not resolve the logical quandary. If god is just, why is it that he allows this to happen? Perhaps the little child will be compensated in heaven for his unwarranted punishment on earth – provided he knows and accepts the story of Jesus.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

So, non-believers help too. That still does not resolve the logical quandary. If god is just, why is it that he allows this to happen? Perhaps the little child will be compensated in heaven for his unwarranted punishment on earth – provided he knows and accepts the story of Jesus.

What part do you not understand? GOD PLAYS NO ACTIVE ROLE IN MAN'S AFFAIRS. There will be everlasting life with no sickness or disease and no troubles once Jesus cleans up the earth. Those judged worthy will receive this life those not found worthy will be forever dead.

Any other claim is simply not true.Praying can provide comfort and can lead one to make the correct decisions.

The entire concept of freewill demands this. If God involves himself directly in man's affairs there would no freewill.

Here is another shocker, if one reads the bible one will discover no one goes to heaven until after armagedden and the Judgement. When you die you are dead until Judgement day.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Once again that is false. He does NOT guide our lives. He provides guidelines but takes no overt or direct action to make us do anything. We must chose to follow, we must chose to believe, we have complete freewill.

And in fact being all the things you point out he is, ensures that he CAN allow freewill by HIS choice not to intervene directly.

When someone says " God has a plan for us all" they do NOT mean he ensures we follow the plan, they do not mean we have no chose but to follow the plan. They mean that God has provided information and indirect guidance and we are free to follow it or not follow it. We are free to follow part of it, all of it or none of it. God wants us to follow the plan but he will not take any direct action to force us to do so. We must CHOSE our path, we CHOSE what we believe and what we do.

There is no contradiction at all with the powers he may have and his decision to not force us to follow him, believe in him or worship him.

In an earlier post you stated that "God has in the past intervened directly...", yet doesn't do so any more. What evidence do you have supporting such intervention, and why does God no longer intervene directly?

As for this indirect guidance, what form, exactly does it take? How does one know it is God and not El or Yaweh or Krishna or a bodhisattva?

 

[Bullypulpit]

What part do you not understand? GOD PLAYS NO ACTIVE ROLE IN MAN'S AFFAIRS. There will be everlasting life with no sickness or disease and no troubles once Jesus cleans up the earth. Those judged worthy will receive this life those not found worthy will be forever dead.

Any other claim is simply not true.Praying can provide comfort and can lead one to make the correct decisions.

The entire concept of freewill demands this. If God involves himself directly in man's affairs there would no freewill.

Here is another shocker, if one reads the bible one will discover no one goes to heaven until after armagedden and the Judgement. When you die you are dead until Judgement day.

Just what are the criteria for "worthiness"? If a person does good works and is an atheist or a Buddhist, a Muslim or Zoroastrian, a Hindu or Jew...Are they automatically deemed unworthy? If so, why?

 

[mattskramer]

Just what are the criteria for "worthiness"? If a person does good works and is an atheist or a Buddhist, a Muslim or Zoroastrian, a Hindu or Jew...Are they automatically deemed unworthy? If so, why?

We might be going off the subject of the thread, but what if the child never heard of Jesus. After he suffers and dies, does he go to hell?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

We might be going off the subject of the thread, but what if the child never heard of Jesus. After he suffers and dies, does he go to hell?

I do not know the answer to that one. I am not sure even the Bible can answer that one. I have personal belief's on the matter but they are just that MY personal opinion.

And all the above questions have nothing to do with the original statements or thread.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

In an earlier post you stated that "God has in the past intervened directly...", yet doesn't do so any more. What evidence do you have supporting such intervention, and why does God no longer intervene directly?

As for this indirect guidance, what form, exactly does it take? How does one know it is God and not El or Yaweh or Krishna or a bodhisattva?

Read the Bible, his direct Interventions are listed there. As to the last question one USES faith.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Having lost the argument that somehow God can not have provided Freewill and still be all the things he is, we have now moved on to questions that have nothing to do with the original statements.

 

[actsnoblemartin]

God: Do not call me names my son, or i shall smite thee

I think its awfully narcissistic to think that God has a plan for me.

 

[Bullypulpit]

Having lost the argument that somehow God can not have provided Freewill and still be all the things he is, we have now moved on to questions that have nothing to do with the original statements.

Nothing lost, nothing gained. But I don't believe we strayed far from the original premise of the thread...That being that if a supreme being with absolute knowledge of past, present and future, is omnipresent, omnipotent and eternal exists free will is an illusion.

Lacking any definitive proof of such a being and seeing the consequences of free will all around me, it would seem that free will exists and a mythical, metaphysical supreme being does not exist.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Nothing lost, nothing gained. But I don't believe we strayed far from the original premise of the thread...That being that if a supreme being with absolute knowledge of past, present and future, is omnipresent, omnipotent and eternal exists free will is an illusion.

Lacking any definitive proof of such a being and seeing the consequences of free will all around me, it would seem that free will exists and a mythical, metaphysical supreme being does not exist.

So, your argument remains that an all powerful all knowing being could NOT chose to allow freewill. You are aware you just made him less then you claim he is.

 

[Vintij]

What does god have to do with free will? Free will is an electrical signal sent from your brain that travels through neurons in your body to trigger muscle movment.

Perhaps god IS omnipotent, but he is certainly not involved in this part of the universe directly. RSG was right about religion not being forced on everyone, but he was wrong about claiming that jesus will return and "cleanse" the world of non-believers.

Unless there is at least a shred of evidence that jesus did resurect from the dead (other than a fictional book of fairy tales) then the argument that jesus IS god, has no foundation. Jesus could have existed easily, but to resurect from the dead is what divides belivers and non-believers. A tiny bit of evidence would help.

Even theories can not be called theories unless it can be tested. Creation is not even a theory. How can we test a claim that noah built an arc with no evidence? Or that god spoke to Abraham and orderd him to kill, with no evidence?

One can claim that life science is just biology, which is just physics and chemistry....etc etc and break everything in a reductionistic approch, down to the sub-atomic particle to explain that God controlls quarks and free floating electrons. At least science reduces claims to different forms of science. Religion does the opposite, building on one idea and exanding it to fit into every explanation of the universe with zero evidence.

So in honesty there could be a god, but no religion on this planet could explain who he is, or what he wants us to do. That is what science can allow everyone to figure out, rather than force that truth onto blind followers.

Next time someone tries to use science to explain why the bible is true, or that god exists, or that creationism is the truth. Please slap them in the face.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

What does god have to do with free will? Free will is an electrical signal sent from your brain that travels through neurons in your body to trigger muscle movment.

Perhaps god IS omnipotent, but he is certainly not involved in this part of the universe directly. RSG was right about religion not being forced on everyone, but he was wrong about claiming that jesus will return and "cleanse" the world of non-believers.

Unless there is at least a shred of evidence that jesus did resurect from the dead (other than a fictional book of fairy tales) then the argument that jesus IS god, has no foundation. Jesus could have existed easily, but to resurect from the dead is what divides belivers and non-believers. A tiny bit of evidence would help.

Even theories can not be called theories unless it can be tested. Creation is not even a theory. How can we test a claim that noah built an arc with no evidence? Or that god spoke to Abraham and orderd him to kill, with no evidence?

One can claim that life science is just biology, which is just physics and chemistry....etc etc and break everything in a reductionistic approch, down to the sub-atomic particle to explain that God controlls quarks and free floating electrons. At least science reduces claims to different forms of science. Religion does the opposite, building on one idea and exanding it to fit into every explanation of the universe with zero evidence.

So in honesty there could be a god, but no religion on this planet could explain who he is, or what he wants us to do. That is what science can allow everyone to figure out, rather than force that truth onto blind followers.

Next time someone tries to use science to explain why the bible is true, or that god exists, or that creationism is the truth. Please slap them in the face.

Thats called Faith and it is what I have been talking about. There is no concrete evidence Jesus ressurected because then there would be no faith and no need to believe anything, it would be established fact and would remove part of that freewill.

 

[Bullypulpit]

So, your argument remains that an all powerful all knowing being could NOT chose to allow freewill. You are aware you just made him less then you claim he is.

I don't claim God to be anything. As for free will, it contradicts the deterministic philosophies espoused by a number of religions, not excluding Christianity.

 

[Truthmatters]

I think everyone should have to take a worlds religions class so that people can truely pick what works for them and understand what others believe.

Do you think our Christain society would allow it?

 

[Vintij]

why does christianity still claim that the earliest writting on earth are in the bible therefore the earth can date back only 6,000 years? Why is this a claim when the majority of the early Christian Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Eusebius, and Basil did not believe the Genesis account depicted ordinary solar days and read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true.

The fathers of christianity did not even believe the genesis account was true. As well as 68 national and international science academies making it clear that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, that life appeared on Earth approximately 3.5 billion years ago, and that scientific and carbon dating evidence has never contradicted this. Why are there so many idiots in the world who still believe in creation?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

why does christianity still claim that the earliest writting on earth are in the bible therefore the earth can date back only 6,000 years? Why is this a claim when the majority of the early Christian Church Fathers including Justin Martyr, Irenaeus, Origen, Augustine, Eusebius, and Basil did not believe the Genesis account depicted ordinary solar days and read creation history as an allegory as well as being theologically true.

The fathers of christianity did not even believe the genesis account was true. As well as 68 national and international science academies making it clear that the Earth is approximately 4.5 billion years old, that life appeared on Earth approximately 3.5 billion years ago, and that scientific and carbon dating evidence has never contradicted this. Why are there so many idiots in the world who still believe in creation?

Most creationists do NOT believe the earth is only 6000 years old. But do make some more ignorant claims.