God's Ultimate plan conflict with free will? [Archive]

learning

December 22nd 2004, 11:56 AM

This is a good question. I have wondered about things like when God is mad at the Israelites when they are too afraid to go into the Promised Land, and He wants to destroy them and start over with just Moses. (this is after the 10 spies gave a bad report and only two, Joshua and Caleb gave a good one) Then Moses intervenes and says that that would make God's name look bad to the Egyptians, so God agrees with Moses and decides He won't let the ones alive that are refusing to go into the promised land to live to do so, only their descendants. Therefore, the forty days of wanderings.

Yet, there are also places where it says things, like in Psalms 139 (which I find a very comforting Psalm) where it says that God knows our thoughts before we say them, He is before and behind us, and that our days are already written in His book. This could mean He knows already because He is outside of time, but I get a feeling that they are also predetermined, but then passages come up where this does not seem so. Then there are the passages where Paul says things that we are already chosen before the foundation of the World, etc.

When I have gone through really bad times, or times when I feel pulled in a wrong direction but go with what I know is right, even though my emotions are low, I sometimes hear that still small voice saying 'Trust Me'. So, I guess I believe that He knows what is best for us even when we're confused at times.

yxboom

December 22nd 2004, 12:22 PM

yes thats nice, but that really doesnt explain what im asking
when an architect lays out his plans to complete construction he doesnt control every aspect of the build to know and to make the completed building come out as planned.

steamer

December 22nd 2004, 11:31 PM

How can god have a plan for anyone? Will it make him more perfectly happy than he is now if you fulfill his plan? Will he be less perfectly happy if you don't fulfill it? Is your fulfilment of the plan something he needs? Does he have a desire for it? If he has a desire it demonstrates a lack, a thing that he doesn't have and cannot get unless some puny human gives it to him. The whole plan thing doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

yxboom

December 23rd 2004, 12:08 AM

KyleX0rz

December 23rd 2004, 12:39 AM

weighman

December 23rd 2004, 01:20 AM

I've been curious for awhile because I'm not quite sure what people mean by "God's Plan" when i think of it to me anyways "God's plan" always messes up free will, so do we, or dont we have free will, explain please
Yes, we have free will. there is a definite plan for our life. If you deviate from your path and your purpose, you are guided back by the troubles you encounter during your journey. The closer you follow the path the fewer problems you willhave. Prosperity or the lack of it is no indication of being right. Education means little. Being good is irrelevent. You are just a piece of the puzzle. If you follow Gods laws and regulations you will do well and end up where your supposed to . When you don't----. That is why we have jails and places like HELL and Saviors like Jesus.

KyleX0rz

December 23rd 2004, 04:45 PM

Yes, we have free will. there is a definite plan for our life. If you deviate from your path and your purpose, you are guided back by the troubles you encounter during your journey. The closer you follow the path the fewer problems you willhave. Prosperity or the lack of it is no indication of being right. Education means little. Being good is irrelevent. You are just a piece of the puzzle. If you follow Gods laws and regulations you will do well and end up where your supposed to . When you don't----. That is why we have jails and places like HELL and Saviors like Jesus.

yeah now that makes sense lol i actually feel quite stupid now after realizing it

thanks

The Seeker

December 24th 2004, 10:07 AM

God's plan as in God has a plan for all of us and how everything should work out for our life, now wouldnt this conflict with our own free will he has given us
As in planning what will happen or what should happen?

He does not appear to have a plan like that at all in any case, from reading the Bible without a devotional or a denominational charge already in mind.

heh..same here
Might I ask then, if you totally do not understand something, why do you believe it?
No offence really intended, but child like faith does not mean being dumb. If you don't fully understand something I understand faith, but if you don't understand it at all, even faith seems like a lame excuse for intellectual lazyness.

Yes, we have free will. there is a definite plan for our life. If you deviate from your path and your purpose, you are guided back by the troubles you encounter during your journey. The closer you follow the path the fewer problems you willhave. Prosperity or the lack of it is no indication of being right. Education means little. Being good is irrelevent. You are just a piece of the puzzle. If you follow Gods laws and regulations you will do well and end up where your supposed to . When you don't----. That is why we have jails and places like HELL and Saviors like Jesus.
Please elaborate, you’re losing me. You think God has a specific plan for us? Did you read Job? What did Job do to deserve what was done to him?

With Psalm 139, first, let us remember God did consider David special, so that could be part of some special considerations he got.

1O lord, thou hast searched me, and known me.

(God searches hearts of men all the time in the Bible, God had already searched David.)

2Thou knowest my downsitting and mine uprising, thou understandest my thought afar off.

(Afar off could mean many things. He has bizaar thoughts only God understands, the thoughts he thinks when God is not in the same room. It is possible that it means before I think them, but that is not the only translation.)

3Thou compassest my path and my lying down, and art acquainted with all my ways.

(NASB 3You (D (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139;&version=49;#cen-NASB-16243D))scrutinize my path and my lying down,
And are intimately acquainted with all my ways.)

4For there is not a word in my tongue, but, lo, O LORD, thou knowest it altogether.

(Could easily mean, "you know it all" or, I cannot advise you. NASB 4Even before there is a word on my tongue,
Behold, O LORD, You (E (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=Psalm%20139;&version=49;#cen-NASB-16244E))know it all. )

5Thou hast beset me behind and before, and laid thine hand upon me.

(God watched over David, what was behind and what was coming. This does not require forknowledge. If David was about to bump into a lion, it doesn't take a psychic to say, "turn around".)

6Such knowledge is too wonderful for me; it is high, I cannot attain unto it.

7Whither shall I go from thy spirit? or whither shall I flee from thy presence?

8If I ascend up into heaven, thou art there: if I make my bed in hell, behold, thou art there.
(We all know God is not in hell. But neither had David ever been there either. This could simply mean in a bad place. In the NIV UK, it says 8 If I go up to the heavens, you are there; if I make my bed in the depths, you are there. 9 If I rise on the wings of the dawn, if I settle on the far side of the sea,)

9If I take the wings of the morning, and dwell in the uttermost parts of the sea;

10Even there shall thy hand lead me, and thy right hand shall hold me.
(God had special consideration concerning David. The man after his own heart. God did not lose track of him. He doesn't lose track of any of his children.)

11If I say, Surely the darkness shall cover me; even the night shall be light about me.

12Yea, the darkness hideth not from thee; but the night shineth as the day: the darkness and the light are both alike to thee.

13For thou hast possessed my reins: thou hast covered me in my mother's womb.

14I will praise thee; for I am fearfully and wonderfully made: marvellous are thy works; and that my soul knoweth right well.

15My substance was not hid from thee, when I was made in secret, and curiously wrought in the lowest parts of the earth.

16Thine eyes did see my substance, yet being unperfect; and in thy book all my members were written, which in continuance were fashioned, when as yet there was none of them.

http://www.jarom.net/psalm139_13-16.htm
17How precious also are thy thoughts unto me, O God! how great is the sum of them!

18If I should count them, they are more in number than the sand: when I awake, I am still with thee.

19Surely thou wilt slay the wicked, O God: depart from me therefore, ye bloody men.

20For they speak against thee wickedly, and thine enemies take thy name in vain.

21Do not I hate them, O LORD, that hate thee? and am not I grieved with those that rise up against thee?

22I hate them with perfect hatred: I count them mine enemies.

23Search me, O God, and know my heart: try me, and know my thoughts:
(Here. Pay attention here. Search me? Search? If God is so redicoulsy all knowing, searching is not required.)

24And see if there be any wicked way in me, and lead me in the way everlasting.

themuzicman

December 24th 2004, 01:38 PM

Seeker,

You need to consider genre when you're exegeting. Psalms is poetry, and frequently speaks in hyperbole and exaggeration to make its point. The idea of exegesis isn't to take each word and phrase out of its context, but to consider the larger context of what the author is saying, and derive meaning from that.

Apart from the context, individual words and sentences have little meaning.

Michael

mickiel

December 25th 2004, 10:43 PM

I've been curious for awhile because I'm not quite sure what people mean by "God's Plan" when i think of it to me anyways "God's plan" always messes up free will, so do we, or dont we have free will, explain please

Free will is an illousion created by people who misinterpit the limits of their humanity. We were created, we are complettely ruled by him, and he is complettely responsible for us. Thats why we are safe, and our future secure. Free will is mankinds declaration of independance from God, men trying to determine their own future. This is why you are having trouble explaining free will and Gods plan, or Gods will, to yourself.

The plan of God, is simply the will of God unfolding into reality. Gopds intentions are to be with his creations forever, and to be with his children eternally. All of them. Men neither understand his plan, or believe it.

TrinityKicker

December 28th 2004, 11:11 PM

The Seeker

January 4th 2005, 07:07 AM

Free will is an illousion created by people who misinterpit the limits of their humanity. We were created, we are complettely ruled by him, and he is complettely responsible for us. Thats why we are safe, and our future secure. Free will is mankinds declaration of independance from God, men trying to determine their own future. This is why you are having trouble explaining free will and Gods plan, or Gods will, to yourself.

The plan of God, is simply the will of God unfolding into reality. Gopds intentions are to be with his creations forever, and to be with his children eternally. All of them. Men neither understand his plan, or believe it.
Declaration of independence... buddy.... if God predestined everything we're doing, didn't he predestine that very concept? Kinda counter productive to your arguement eh?:lol:

Another easy argeument here is, the existence of evil. If it is a chioce, it's quite simple to explain evil's existence. If it is predestined, then its not our fault, but God's. I argue calvinism is an attempt to blame God every time something bad happens. God set up rules under which we live, die and feel pain, I seriously doubt he interferes with those rules 24/7 or something rediculous like that. There's no need. Yes there are general reasons for the occurances on earth, but I doubt specific reasons for every event.

As to Romans 8
http://www.jarom.net/romans8.htm

(No, Jarom is not me, but a friend of mine anyway.)

zorathruster

January 16th 2005, 04:24 PM

God's plan is for people to freely choose to bear his image and free will only requires an unhindered choice between serving God and opposing him.

There is no contradiction in this. The problem comes when people think God's plan involves predestination or that free will is unlimited in scope. I don't think either of these things, so I don't have that problem.If God knows what will happen, it has to occur exactly in a particular way. The alternative is that a slight deviation from the expected could easily result in a total change in "what will happen". So everything must go exactly in the way God expects it to go for him to know what will transpire, allowing him to fill his prophets in on the up coming events. You cannot say God knows all possibilities because like knowing all possibilities for dice, that doesn't help you know what the next roll in craps will be. Since God must know exactly which of all possible sequences of events will occur for him to appropriately know the future, all is predestine to occur exactly as God has forseen it to happen, thus predestination is true and the ability of you to change what will be is an illusion. If predestination is false there are multitudes of possible outcomes any of which have equal possibilities and in the case of "free will" God would not know the future. In that scenario, all the foresight of the prophets are invalid.

To claim free will has a limited scope would still allow variation enough for a particular event to be uncertain and future events could not be foretold with any accuracy.

To limit free will to the choice of following God or not fails to provide any predictive results for the large amount of variation that is possible especially with foretelling human history, its like trying to heard cats. Thus again, predictive power would be severely restricted.

Xmansmommy

January 16th 2005, 05:16 PM

If God knows what will happen, it has to occur exactly in a particular way. The alternative is that a slight deviation from the expected could easily result in a total change in "what will happen". So everything must go exactly in the way God expects it to go for him to know what will transpire, allowing him to fill his prophets in on the up coming events. You cannot say God knows all possibilities because like knowing all possibilities for dice, that doesn't help you know what the next roll in craps will be. Since God must know exactly which of all possible sequences of events will occur for him to appropriately know the future, all is predestine to occur exactly as God has forseen it to happen, thus predestination is true and the ability of you to change what will be is an illusion.

God has to forsee in order to predestine, why? :huh:

If predestination is false there are multitudes of possible outcomes any of which have equal possibilities and in the case of "free will" God would not know the future. In that scenario, all the foresight of the prophets are invalid.

What biblical evidence is there that all of the prophets had foresight in the sense that you are suggesting? I'm also curious what your definition of prophecy is?

To claim free will has a limited scope would still allow variation enough for a particular event to be uncertain and future events could not be foretold with any accuracy.

Again, let's define prophecy. :smile:

To limit free will to the choice of following God or not fails to provide any predictive results for the large amount of variation that is possible especially with foretelling human history, its like trying to heard cats. Thus again, predictive power would be severely restricted.

:huh:

zorathruster

January 16th 2005, 08:39 PM

God has to forsee in order to predestine, why? :huh:

What biblical evidence is there that all of the prophets had foresight in the sense that you are suggesting? I'm also curious what your definition of prophecy is?

Again, let's define prophecy. :smile:

:huh:
Prophecy is knowing as opposed to predicting possible future events. The entire book of Revelation is a prophecy. many of the passages of Daniel are accepted by bible believers as prophetic about the coming Messiah. It tells of specific events that should occur. It talks about specific characters, such as horsemen, someone out of Bethleham and seals and stuff that will trounce humanity. If it isn't going to happen, it is not devinely ordained and I doubt you wish to start giving the heave ho to accepted biblical prophecies.

What exactly would you define as prophecy and how would it differ from just guessing?

themuzicman

January 16th 2005, 08:50 PM

How about believing in a God powerful enough to bring it about? How about a future whose possibilities are knowable, but not the specific course, and where the key factors to a prophecy are in God's control, such that He can bring about His prophecies without having dictated every moment of the future?

You see, there are other possibilities.

Michael

Xmansmommy

January 16th 2005, 09:19 PM

yxboom

January 16th 2005, 09:31 PM

there are instances where God would simply prophecy the natural consequences of things.

Xmansmommy

January 16th 2005, 09:33 PM

Yes yx, true. But again, that doesn't take foreknowledge in the sense that I think Zorathruster assumes.

zorathruster

January 17th 2005, 08:58 AM

Thank you Muz. Zorathruster, I would define prophecy as God forthtelling what He intends to bring to pass. I would venture to guess that you would define it as God looking into the future and seeing what will transpire and then foretelling, correct?
Ah a believer in piddlism. You must believe this almighty being sits in the clouds and piddles with events to effect things in a particular way. The discription in that direction then makes God total director for all events. He sets things up and then watches to see how they fall. This correspondingly affronts the idea that God is loving.

If it is true that an interactive God controls all events then he by definition is responsible for all events. When an innocent dies, God causes that to happen. When accidents occur, God causes that to happen. When people keel over and die, that is a caused event. This conflicts with the idea that God is all loving because, bad things happen to good people. If he operates in the piddlist manner, then he could just as well prevent bad things from happening if he was all loving. God could have prevented either the Oklahoma bombing and the death of the children there and he could have prevented the 911 attacks and the thousands who died, he just didn't.

I would venture that you don't wish to make him totally responsible (piddlism) or totally hands off. You would like a nice blend that allows him to affect changes and cause his foreknowledge to come about without having to be responsible for occurances that conflict with the concept of an all loving God? If you allow him piddlism privaledges, you have to shoulder him with the responsibilities of occurances that could have been prevented.

Xmansmommy

January 17th 2005, 12:56 PM

Ah a believer in piddlism. You must believe this almighty being sits in the clouds and piddles with events to effect things in a particular way.

That portion of your comments I would agree with, although I find them quite sarcastic and unnecessary.

The discription in that direction then makes God total director for all events.

Totally disagree. Influencing does not mean controlling.

He sets things up and then watches to see how they fall.

He influences and inspires yet at the same time poeple reject that influence and inspiration and yes, He grieves over it.

This correspondingly affronts the idea that God is loving.

In the way you depict Him, perhaps.

If it is true that an interactive God controls all events then he by definition is responsible for all events.

I don't believe God controls all events and I'm not sure how you got that from anything I wrote here. :huh:

When an innocent dies, God causes that to happen. When accidents occur, God causes that to happen. When people keel over and die, that is a caused event.

God causes everything in your opinion? I kinda thought people are responsible for accidents etc. And I also thought that people keel over and die for a myriad of reasons. Ever look at death certificates? While I've only viewed one in my lifetime, it never listed God as cause of death. :wink:

This conflicts with the idea that God is all loving because, bad things happen to good people.

Sure, I agree that meticulous control would make God responsible for all things. But once again, that's not the view I espouse.

If he operates in the piddlist manner, then he could just as well prevent bad things from happening if he was all loving.

And the same freedom He allows people to make good choices and to love Him, He also allows wicked people the freedom to make wicked ones and hate Him.

God could have prevented either the Oklahoma bombing and the death of the children there and he could have prevented the 911 attacks and the thousands who died, he just didn't.

See above comments.

I would venture that you don't wish to make him totally responsible (piddlism) or totally hands off.

I'm honestly wondering if you've actually read and taken time to understand my earlier posts because you seem to be suggesting I hold conflicting views about God not controlling and God meticulously controlling. So allow me to clear it up for you. I do not believe God controls everything meticulously. I believe He influences and inspires and perhaps on rare occasion intervenes. I believe He is powerful enough to bring to pass His counsel and His will without controlling every aspect of everything.

You would like a nice blend that allows him to affect changes and cause his foreknowledge to come about without having to be responsible for occurances that conflict with the concept of an all loving God?

I think that's the biblical portrait so yeah.

If you allow him piddlism privaledges, you have to shoulder him with the responsibilities of occurances that could have been prevented.

I can understand He affords free creatures the freedom to do good and bad without intervening completely. However, I do struggle with understanding why God does not prevent natural disasters. That is an area that I'm willing to concede that I don't have an answer. I hope to understand one day. It does indeed cause me difficulties in my faith at times.

And you Zorathruster? While I recognize you are not a Christian I am curious to know what your thoughts on the biblical God are? And what do you think He controls or doesn't control? Perhaps we could discuss it privately or in another thread so as not to derail this one. I'm quite curious I must admit. Look forward to it. :smile:

yxboom

January 17th 2005, 01:39 PM

Sacrificial Ram

January 17th 2005, 02:03 PM

zora in your reply, your fallacy cup runneth over. i'll name a few: appeal to emotion, begging the question, guilt by association, strawman, special pleading. *takes a breath*
Because of your assumptions of what you want xmm to believe you have successfully misrepresented and foolishly replied to a point of view she does not espouse in her post. Let me try this:
meticulous control = not what xmm said but you assumed
general providence = what xmm has stated but you ignored

hope that helps.
Actually, no, he is just stating the logical implications of 'free will' vs 'predetermination'. No special pleding what so ever. No begging the question.

Free will and omniscient are mutually exclusive, no matter what kind of
twisting , turning, claiming special cases for god, or whatever.

Now, a case can be made that God is not omniscient, using bibilcal sources. In that case, free will could exist.

Sacrificial Ram

January 17th 2005, 02:13 PM

Thank you Muz. Zorathruster, I would define prophecy as God forthtelling what He intends to bring to pass. I would venture to guess that you would define it as God looking into the future and seeing what will transpire and then foretelling, correct?
What is the difference if God forces it to transpire, or knows it will transpire.. eitehr way, it makes the concept of free will meaningless.

Xmansmommy

January 17th 2005, 02:15 PM

What is the difference if God forces it to transpire, or knows it will transpire.. eitehr way, it makes the concept of free will meaningless.

I don't recall saying that God forces it to happen. Once again, He influences and inspires and uses what's in the hearts of men/women to bring to pass His will. And when people reject His will and things don't always go as He would like, He works all things for good to those that love Him.

yxboom

January 17th 2005, 02:50 PM

Actually, no, he is just stating the logical implications of 'free will' vs 'predetermination'. No special pleding what so ever. No begging the question.

Free will and omniscient are mutually exclusive, no matter what kind of
twisting , turning, claiming special cases for god, or whatever.

Now, a case can be made that God is not omniscient, using bibilcal sources. In that case, free will could exist.
Did you not read xmm's reply either?

Ah a believer in piddlism. You must believe this almighty being sits in the clouds and piddles with events to effect things in a particular way. The discription in that direction then makes God total director for all events. He sets things up and then watches to see how they fall. This correspondingly affronts the idea that God is loving....
If you allow him piddlism privaledges, you have to shoulder him with the responsibilities of occurances that could have been prevented. now what the heck is piddlism? The belief that God urinates a particular way?

Sacrificial Ram

January 17th 2005, 04:04 PM

I don't recall saying that God forces it to happen. Once again, He influences and inspires and uses what's in the hearts of men/women to bring to pass His will. And when people reject His will and things don't always go as He would like, He works all things for good to those that love Him.
Ok..so your concept is that god has an overall plan, he does not KNOW for sure that it will happen, he knows what he has planned out, and he works for it, but does not know for sure it will happen. In other words, he does not know the future... he just trys to work towards a future..

Am I stating what your concept is correctly??

KyleX0rz

January 17th 2005, 10:26 PM

ok out of everything i have gather i've decided free will does not conflict with free will why?

God has a plan for everyone however no one has to follow these plans
The plan is like a document he wants us to follow for our own lives, free will has nothing to do with it. God granted us free will and because of this I believe God knows all our decisions and does not intervene when I make a decision. I look at it like this God doesnt view the universe in a choregraphed time line....God sees everything all the time and knows the outcome of just one problem I solve many different ways.

Xmansmommy

January 17th 2005, 10:42 PM

Ok..so your concept is that god has an overall plan, he does not KNOW for sure that it will happen, he knows what he has planned out, and he works for it, but does not know for sure it will happen. In other words, he does not know the future... he just trys to work towards a future..

Am I stating what your concept is correctly??

I'd clarify my position as such....God had an overall plan, He knew for sure He would bring His plan to pass but was not confined to foreknowing all the specifics and minute details. He brought it to pass by influencing, inspiring and by being the all wise Creator that He is. He has general plans within the major plan...subplans if you will. And He is involved in those the same way, IMO. Hope that helps.

Sacrificial Ram

January 17th 2005, 11:42 PM

I'd clarify my position as such....God had an overall plan, He knew for sure He would bring His plan to pass but was not confined to foreknowing all the specifics and minute details. He brought it to pass by influencing, inspiring and by being the all wise Creator that He is. He has general plans within the major plan...subplans if you will. And He is involved in those the same way, IMO. Hope that helps.
Ok. I see your concept. It avoids the inherent conflict between many people's concept of 'all knowing', and 'free will'.

Xmansmommy

January 18th 2005, 12:07 AM

I'd ask them to define omniscience biblically. The word is not there but they use a dictionary to define it when the bible doesn't define it in the same fashion. :wink:

OckhamsRazor

January 18th 2005, 10:21 AM

I would like to state at the outset that there are actually several ideas about this issue of soverinty and free will. One is Libertarian freedom, another is called Middle Knowledge, another is Double predestiation Calvanism, another is Calvanism, another is Arminianism. There is also a book by Greg Boyd called
"The God Of The Possible". So there are numerous options. Oh, and there is also an idea called "Best possible of all worlds". So if people are upset over this idea and they are struggling with it the above list might give you some comfort. This idea has been battled over since Augustine.

Now for my two cents:

I have to define a few things first.
One: It is God that desides all that is good and bad.
Two: God is always good and always does good unavoidabley.
Three: There are things wich are bad for us to do by God's decree yet not bad for God to do (i.e. vengance)

Ok, that being said: What about the question of "Why does God let bad things happen to good people?" First, there is no such thing as good people. The horrifying thing about Hitler, Stalin and Pol Pot is not just what they did but that we are all every bit as capable of doing the same things. All these men posessed the same humanity we all do. So when you get down to it, no matter what you might think, we all got it comin'. You might ask "Why didn't God stop us from being that way" and I can't answer that in any definite way but I will say this, God sent Jesus so we can never say that He didn't do anything to try to help or that He Himself didn't suffer too. Jesus does give us a way to get out from under our own badness. So don't blame God.

I heard a story about the man who used to be one of Billy Ghram's partners in ministry but become an agnostic later. He said it started with him seeing a picture of a woman with a starving child in Africa. He asked him self why doesn't God intervene? Well that went on with him and he finally abandoned his faith. I say that God did intervene. The man was standing there looking at the picture and had plenty of money in the bank and food in his stomache and millions of others are equally well off and are doing NOTHING. These people starve because mankind alows them to starve. God has fully provided. The US alone makes enough to feed everyone in the world a 3,000 calorie a day diet. Once again we see that we aren't good people. Further more, how do we know that the child she was holding in her arms wasn't the next Hitler only a thousand times worse.

Now, I personally believe that God is in control ultimately of everything, but I also believe that He allows us some free will. This sounds like a contradiction untill we realize that it may simply be a case of our own ignorance. A physical example of this kind of mystery is the conflict between Relativity and Quantum Mechanics. We know they are both true in many ways but yet we see a fundamental conflict between the two.
Now, God cannot be said to do anything bad. All things that He does are by definition good. It cannot be otherwise. So if you think God is doing evil then the problem lies in your own thinking because your thinking is inconnsistent with reality. Evil and good only apply to us and the angels. So by definition we and the angels are the only ones capable of evil.

Now, before you complain that this explaination is unsatisfying there are other explainations and God sent Jesus to comfort, suffer with us, and save us. It's not like He didn't provide a way for us.

Finally two things,
One: In regard to Hell, I think that if God removed all of His reflection in a human being you would have no trouble seeing that the person can only belong in hell by his or her very nature. When a person goes to hell God simply removes His reflection in a number of ways and we see the person for what they really are. What we call good in others is simply the reflection of God in them. What we most desire in and from others is prescisely who and what God is. If God removed His reflection in the person; you wouldn't want a thing to do with them. God sends people to Hell because they belong there. You might say "That's unfair of God" "Why not just not create the person". I can't answer that question fully but I will say this: What makes you think that we are the center of the universe. Why should God do everything in reference to what we think and feel. He gave us proof of His love and help in Jesus. If that doesn't convince you of His love then nothing will. Watch the passion and you'll see how much God loves you. If you reject Jesus even though He did all that for you then you will go where you belong. Remember this, the whole thing is God's show not ours.

OckhamsRazor~

The Seeker

January 18th 2005, 05:32 PM

So much to respond to, my e-mail delayed on telling me this was still going.

Well... hmm. I guess I should first explain my position before I even pretend to argue with anyone right? Didn't do that earlier... oops

First, where does my understanding of God begin and end? Simple, logic and the Bible. I say and not because logic is something I use to correct God's word, but because it is logic that keeps me from ever leaving the faith. (I'm sure any non-Christians would love to hear that story... stay tuned)

well here are the eight laws of logic I've figured out so far...
The 8 Laws of Logic

The Law of Paradox:

The actions of an object cannot contradict the possibility of its own actions or existence.

The Law of Philosophy:

No philosophy can be judged acceptable which tells us our actions cannot ultimately matter or be our own.

The Law of Morality:

Good and evil are real (refer back to second law). It is the nature of the two to destroy one another. Given time and resources one will always conquer or destroy the other. At the current time, the ultimate goal of one, is to destroy the other.

The Law of Ultimate Truth:

Ultimate truth must be attainable and must have been attainable for all human generations.

Oocom's Razor:

All things considered equally, the simplest explanation tends to be the most likely.

Law of simplicity:

If any philosophy cannot be understood, it should not be followed.

Law of anti-sophistry:

We cannot accept that all of history has been reported incorrectly.

Law of assumption:
One cannot make assumptions based on data not given. One must work with information actually given.

Now, on with it. Calvinism: unnacceptable, even if it is true, no man can live as though he cannot control his own actions. Calvinism is more an avoidence of human responsiblity. I hear it all the time. "You can't not sin, that's impossible for humans" is it now? Until that fateful time, when did Job sin? When did Elijah sin? Or being in flesh himself, when did Jesus sin? "But the flesh is corrupt!" Is it now? Or is it corrupted? In other words, its essence has nothing to do with corruption, but what it is used for corrupts it. If "flesh" is corrupt, perhaps someone would like to tell me how a rabbit is corrupt. Or even more importantly, why did God create a corrupt thing?

Perhaps I should add another law. The law of eqaulity:
No creature of free will can be above the laws of good and evil, if they simply do not apply, they simply do not exist.

So it is said, since God kills, he must not be bound by "thou shalt not kill" of course, so did the Isrealites kill under his command. Has anyone heard of the greater good? Ends to justify the means? Well we all know it can be right to bring vengence on someone and it can be wrong, doesn't it really depend more on why you are doing it and how?

If God is not bound by any law, then wouldn't it be silly to call him good? How can you call someone good who knows neither good nor evil? Off subject. It was brought up so I thought I'd address it.

Now, can God see the future? Well it says in the Bible time itself had a begining, but God did not. Now that could mean the begining of time for man or time itself, whatever you like, but the later implies God created and therefore controls time. Even if he lives inside it, and I have no reason to believe he does not, then what exactly stops him from moving back and forth? Besides I'd like to see anyone who says God cannot know the future, explain the book of Daniel. But... there then is a rule isn't there? Paradox. If you see the future, by definition you cannot change it or you did not see the future at all did you? Does God ever tell people how to change the future, or just tell them what's coming?

Now can God see all future? Well the most obvious question there, from the point I just made is, who in his right mind would want to? It is clear in the Bible there are things God sees, and things he does not. There is no thing God can't see, but there are things he does not see.

If I am wrong Calvinists, explain these passages:
(KJV)
Genesis 18: 20-21

20And the LORD said, Because the cry of Sodom and Gomorrah is great, and because their sin is very grievous; 21I will go down now, and see whether they have done altogether according to the cry of it, which is come unto me; and if not, I will know.

22-32

22And the men turned their faces from thence, and went toward Sodom: but Abraham stood yet before the LORD. 23And Abraham drew near, and said, Wilt thou also destroy the righteous with the wicked? 24Peradventure there be fifty righteous within the city: wilt thou also destroy and not spare the place for the fifty righteous that are therein?25That be far from thee to do after this manner, to slay the righteous with the wicked: and that the righteous should be as the wicked, that be far from thee: Shall not the Judge of all the earth do right? 26And the LORD said, If I find in Sodom fifty righteous within the city, then I will spare all the place for their sakes. 27And Abraham answered and said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD, which am but dust and ashes: 28Peradventure there shall lack five of the fifty righteous: wilt thou destroy all the city for lack of five? And he said, If I find there forty and five, I will not destroy it. 29And he spake unto him yet again, and said, Peradventure there shall be forty found there. And he said, I will not do it for forty's sake. 30And he said unto him, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak: Peradventure there shall thirty be found there. And he said, I will not do it, if I find thirty there. 31And he said, Behold now, I have taken upon me to speak unto the LORD: Peradventure there shall be twenty found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for twenty's sake. 32And he said, Oh let not the LORD be angry, and I will speak yet but this once: Peradventure ten shall be found there. And he said, I will not destroy it for ten's sake.

Genesis 6:6
And it repented the LORD that he had made man on the earth, and it grieved him at his heart.

Exodus 32:13-14
13Remember Abraham, Isaac, and Israel, thy servants, to whom thou swarest by thine own self, and saidst unto them, I will multiply your seed as the stars of heaven, and all this land that I have spoken of will I give unto your seed, and they shall inherit it for ever. 14And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

Exodus 4:24-26
24And it came to pass by the way in the inn, that the LORD met him, and sought to kill him. 25Then Zipporah took a sharp stone, and cut off the foreskin of her son, and cast it at his feet, and said, Surely a bloody husband art thou to me. 26So he let him go: then she said, A bloody husband thou art, because of the circumcision.

TrinityKicker

January 19th 2005, 05:44 PM

I apologize for taking so long to reply.
If God knows what will happen, it has to occur exactly in a particular way. The alternative is that a slight deviation from the expected could easily result in a total change in "what will happen". So everything must go exactly in the way God expects it to go for him to know what will transpire, allowing him to fill his prophets in on the up coming events. You cannot say God knows all possibilities because like knowing all possibilities for dice, that doesn't help you know what the next roll in craps will be. Since God must know exactly which of all possible sequences of events will occur for him to appropriately know the future, all is predestine to occur exactly as God has forseen it to happen, thus predestination is true and the ability of you to change what will be is an illusion. If predestination is false there are multitudes of possible outcomes any of which have equal possibilities and in the case of "free will" God would not know the future. In that scenario, all the foresight of the prophets are invalid. Your construct presupposes a temporality on God's knowledge that I don't see there. God's foreknowledge is determined by the future. In other words, God's foreknowledge of my free choices is temporally prior and ontologically posterior to my making those choices. As a play on your own words, it's not that everything must happen the way that God expects it. It is that God must expect everything to happen the way it will. You seem to be claiming that God predestines simply because God foreknows, but you are not saying why that claim is true.
To claim free will has a limited scope would still allow variation enough for a particular event to be uncertain and future events could not be foretold with any accuracy.If the minimum requirement for free will is the freedom to choose to serve God or rebel and God's ultimate plan is to produce moral agents who freely choose to conform to His image, then no amount of free will can stop God's ultimate plan.
To limit free will to the choice of following God or not fails to provide any predictive results for the large amount of variation that is possible especially with foretelling human history, its like trying to heard cats. Thus again, predictive power would be severely restricted.If God's foreknowledge is ontologically posterior to free choices then foretelling human history is not a problem at all.

zorathruster

January 19th 2005, 09:26 PM

1. In other words, God's foreknowledge of my free choices is temporally prior and ontologically posterior to my making those choices.

2. As a play on your own words, it's not that everything must happen the way that God expects it. It is that God must expect everything to happen the way it will.

3. You seem to be claiming that God predestines simply because God foreknows, but you are not saying why that claim is true.

4. If the minimum requirement for free will is the freedom to choose to serve God or rebel and God's ultimate plan is to produce moral agents who freely choose to conform to His image, then no amount of free will can stop God's ultimate plan.

5. If God's foreknowledge is ontologically posterior to free choices then foretelling human history is not a problem at all.1. OK God is trying to figure out what to tell his prophets who are going to tell the people what will happen. How does this form of foresight help him be specific about what will happen?

2. If things don't happen the way God expects them to, how can those prophets in question #1 be told? The whole idea of knowing the future (prophetic) and what will occur is that it is what God expects.

3. It is not that God would predestine, it is that in order for God to know what will occur, it can only happen the way he foresees it. Since it can only happen in that single "foreseen" way, it must be that only one posibility of the sequence of events exists, that is predestination (only one possible sequence of events). If you assert free will, that means there are billions of possibilities. Which one occurs is the result of the billions of free choices that are made. But with billions of real posibilities, that means the actual one that happens cannot be foreseen.

4. That might be correct. However, there is no way to validate which of the many proposed "God's plans" is actually the one God is putting forth. The moslems claim on knowing the ultimate plan is as validated as the Christian one. To differentiate between the two is mostly a fact of geographical position. If you are born in Bagdad or Terran your choice would be different than if you were born in Atlanta or Memphis. If you want to read about the mystical validation and falsification criteria, Sagan's Demon haunted world is an excellent start.

5. Maybe a few definitions will help. Ontological - the nature of being, Ontological argument - the ability to concieve of a God means he must exist.
I can conceive of a purple unicorn, therefore, it exists. I can concieve of fairies and trolls and wee people therefore they too exist. How would you define a known future, such as the video tape of the Wizzard of Oz, that will be completed exactly as you know it to be completed. You have seen the movie, you know that the witch dies and the tin man gets a heart, and Dorthy ends up back in Kansas. Would it ever happen that the witch captures Dorthy and the tin man ends up in the lake and the scarecrow burns up? The video has no free will in it. Those characters will dutifully follow the sequence every time the video rolls. Do they have a choice? In exactly the way there is only one possible sequence for the video, there is also only one possible sequence if god is to know the future sequence of events. It plays in only one way, Dorthy is predestine to return to Kansas, the scarecrow is predestine to get his brain and the tin man will get his heart. thus I ascribe that single possible sequence as predestination. What would you call it?

Sacrificial Ram

January 19th 2005, 10:38 PM

I apologize for taking so long to reply.
Your construct presupposes a temporality on God's knowledge that I don't see there. God's foreknowledge is determined by the future. In other words, God's foreknowledge of my free choices is temporally prior and ontologically posterior to my making those choices. As a play on your own words, it's not that everything must happen the way that God expects it. It is that God must expect everything to happen the way it will. You seem to be claiming that God predestines simply because God foreknows, but you are not saying why that claim is true.
If the minimum requirement for free will is the freedom to choose to serve God or rebel and God's ultimate plan is to produce moral agents who freely choose to conform to His image, then no amount of free will can stop God's ultimate plan.
If God's foreknowledge is ontologically posterior to free choices then foretelling human history is not a problem at all.
If God knows what someone is going to do, is there any way that they can NOT do that? If they can, then there is free will. If they can not do something different than what god 'knows' they are going to do, then there is only the illusion of free will, but your actions are "cast in stone" before you are born.

OckhamsRazor

January 20th 2005, 07:34 AM

zorathruster

January 20th 2005, 10:00 AM

I want to reply by making a point I made in my earlier post. Zora and Sacri: you seem to insist that there cannot be a third option in the free will/ predestined question. However; you wouldn't deny the validity of Relativity or Quantum Mechanics yet they appear to contradict each other ultimately. We are simply ignorant of how they work together. I would say the same is true of the former question.

~Ock
I will deny that both can be right. Relativity has been validated by every test we have conducted on it. The proposed quantum theory if validated will overturn relativity as an explanation of reality. There is not yet a verifiable theory that can validate quantum. You are right to say they contradict each other. Our ignorance is the inability to formulate equations or construct adequate tests to consistently explain what is happening in the quantum realm. Until that happens, we do have a mystery. But guess what, we are getting closer to a resolution.

They don't work together, one or the other will be found "Wrong". Newton and his discription of gravity was just fine until relativity. We can no longer say Newton was right. He was correct in the specific cases he presented but those only represented a special case of very sub-light speed gravity. Once Albert showed how his equations applied for the full range of speeds, he now holds the credible theory, Newton still works but only in significantly slow situations.

Newton is still taught because the equation that is used for Einstien's proofs is too complex for the lower level math that most students have mastered by the time they are introduced to the physics of gravity. Newton can still explain as long as the material is significantly sub-light.

TrinityKicker

January 20th 2005, 08:25 PM

zorathruster

January 20th 2005, 10:40 PM

1. In the sense of foretelling future events, God knowledge of what will happen is integral to His telling what will happen with both detail and accuracy.

2. God cannot expect things to turn out in any way other than the way that they will turn out. If God were to expect something that didn't come to pass, then God would not know the future.

3. That is to say that the future free will choices can't be known before they are made. Since the choices are known, the choices are not free. I don't see why that is the case. My problem is the first part. Freedom of will does not require ignorance of future choices. It merely requires that there be an undetermined choice. The number of possibilities does not seem relevant. Possibilities are important when trying to predict future events. My claim is that God's knowledge of future events is determined by (ontologically posterior) future events.

4. It seems to me that claiming that there is no way to validate something is usually another way of communicating a close-mindedness to a type of idea. I work with a believer in Islam from Lebenon. The differences are huge.

5. I am not using an ontological proof for the existance of God. I am simply saying that part God's knowledge is determined by future events. Fictional characters have no free will, but not because we have seen the movie. It is because their actions are determined by the writer. Since God knows our choices but doesn't determine them, we are free while he still knows the future.
1. Exactly so the future cannot go in any other way than what God has foreseen. It is already determined it will be exactly as he has foreseen. Thus: Predetermined.

2. Exactly so the events that will happen will only happen in that particular way or he doesn't know the future. You are catching on!

3. But wait a minute, how can you make a different choice than that "1" that will be? If God already knows that you will make a particular choice in a particular way, you don't really have a choice. You will make that choice exactly as he has foreseen. You really have no choice at all since it is already known which choice you will make. The number of possibilities only matters if you could choose one of many but infact if the resultant is already known, you are just like the "Dorthy" character, you will only do as the single possible sequence allows you. You have no more choice than the movie character. You are correct in saying it only requires an undetermined choice, but it is not only already determined, it is known by God which choice it is. Since he knows what you will do, you really have no choice in the issue.

4. And which of the many revelations do you like? David Koresh claimed to speak for God. The majority of people claim he does not speak for God. How do you know if he does or not? Upon what would you validate whether he is speaking for God?

5. Exactly, if God already has seen the movie, the sequence doesn't and can't change from what he saw. There is only one possible sequence which means predestination. You only escape predestination by having a multitude of possible sequences, but we have just ruled that out. There is only one possible sequence, the one God has foreseen, thus again, one possibility. For example: God has foreseen you will make a choice next week to file a frivolous deduction on your taxes. Do you now have a choice in the matter? Can you do otherwise? No, not if what God has seen is correct. You will commit that sin and you have no choice to do otherwise. You may think today you will be forthright but when the form goes in, you will do it because God foresaw you do it. Once he sees that it will happen, it destroys your choice in the matter. Only without foreknowledge are you given the ability to make a different choice, one he doesn't know. Foreknowledge and free will choices are incompatable, either one but not both can be correct.

TrinityKicker

January 21st 2005, 08:03 PM

1. Predetermination doesn't simply imply that God knows what will happen, but that God sets it up so all of human history is decided mechanistically. You seem to be implying that foreknown equals foreplanned.

2. I'm glad we agree.

3. You continue to assert that because the choice is know before hand, the choice is not free. I don't see a reason to accept that limitation. What is wrong with future events determining God's knowledge of the future?

4. That would be a good thread on it's own. First, I would see if he is consistant in what he says. If he tells me God was created 10 years ago, we would have a problem. Next, I would have to see if he was correct in what he said. If he tells me that 1+1 is 100, we would have a problem. From there I might start looking into miracles, prophecies and his effect on people. I kept this short because this is not the topic of the thread, but it is a good question.

5. (refer to #3) In one hand, you are saying that God sees a future choice (free will determining God's knowledge) and then in the other hand you say that the choice is not free after God sees the choice before it is made (predestination determining action). It seems similar to saying that I can taste the sugar in FunDip because it is there (food composition determing sensation) and then saying that the sugar in FunDip is put there by my tasting its sugar (sensation determining food composition).

zorathruster

January 27th 2005, 07:04 PM

5. (refer to #3) In one hand, you are saying that God sees a future choice (free will determining God's knowledge) and then in the other hand you say that the choice is not free after God sees the choice before it is made (predestination determining action). It seems similar to saying that I can taste the sugar in FunDip because it is there (food composition determing sensation) and then saying that the sugar in FunDip is put there by my tasting its sugar (sensation determining food composition).
I gave you two cases. First case: God knows what will happen exactly as it will happen. Since he knows what will occur, by definition it must occur exactly in that way. Free choices are an illusion. You had no true way to choose other than what God had foreseen. Second case: Free choice and free will is correct. You actually have a choice to make selection one or selection two. If you have two legitimate choices then your determination of that choice determines the future. Until that moment when you make the choice it is unknown by anyone or anything. In that case, free will is possible but knowing the future is not possible.

This reality of the incompatability of free will and foreknowledge was realized by Calvin and thusly, Calvinists believe all is foreseen and predetermined and those who are born to go to heaven and those who will spend eternity roasting on a spit are known at their birth. They have no real choices in life.

OckhamsRazor

January 28th 2005, 05:52 PM

I will deny that both can be right. Relativity has been validated by every test we have conducted on it. The proposed quantum theory if validated will overturn relativity as an explanation of reality. There is not yet a verifiable theory that can validate quantum. You are right to say they contradict each other. Our ignorance is the inability to formulate equations or construct adequate tests to consistently explain what is happening in the quantum realm. Until that happens, we do have a mystery. But guess what, we are getting closer to a resolution.

They don't work together, one or the other will be found "Wrong". Newton and his discription of gravity was just fine until relativity. We can no longer say Newton was right. He was correct in the specific cases he presented but those only represented a special case of very sub-light speed gravity. Once Albert showed how his equations applied for the full range of speeds, he now holds the credible theory, Newton still works but only in significantly slow situations.

Newton is still taught because the equation that is used for Einstien's proofs is too complex for the lower level math that most students have mastered by the time they are introduced to the physics of gravity. Newton can still explain as long as the material is significantly sub-light.
Quantum Mechanics and Relativity both enjoy a great deal of empirical support. This is especially true of Quantum Mechanics. Quantum Mechanics is said by some to be the most successsfull theory in the history of science. A theory of quantum gravity wouldn't overturn GR. It would actually unify GR with QM. The quest for the unified field theory is focused on this problem. Three of the forces are unified in our knowledge right now. Electromagnetic force, week force, strong force are unified in our knowledge. Only the force of gravity remains to be tied in to the three other forces. One solution to this problem is String Theory. I would imagine there are others. I have read up on some basics about String Theory so that is what I'm most familiar with.
My point in my post wasn't that there was any true contradiction between GR and QM. I believe that either String Theory or another idea that would describe quantum gravity will eventually be discoverd. What I am saying is that there is an apparent contradiction between to very successful ideas in physics. That doesn't indicate that one is wrong necessarily. It can just mean we don't have all the information. So my point is that just because one believes that there is a contradiction doesn't mean there is. It simply means that there maybe a third option in terms of free will and God's all powerfulness and knowledge and how they work together.

TrinityKicker

January 28th 2005, 06:50 PM

I gave you two cases. First case: God knows what will happen exactly as it will happen. Since he knows what will occur, by definition it must occur exactly in that way. Free choices are an illusion. You had no true way to choose other than what God had foreseen. Second case: Free choice and free will is correct. You actually have a choice to make selection one or selection two. If you have two legitimate choices then your determination of that choice determines the future. Until that moment when you make the choice it is unknown by anyone or anything. In that case, free will is possible but knowing the future is not possible.

This reality of the incompatability of free will and foreknowledge was realized by Calvin and thusly, Calvinists believe all is foreseen and predetermined and those who are born to go to heaven and those who will spend eternity roasting on a spit are known at their birth. They have no real choices in life.
There is a third option. That option is that God's foreknowledge is cause by events that have not happened yet. You keep asserting that choices aren't free if they are know before they are made. I see no reason to accept that and you still haven't given one. If you are just take that claim to be true on the basis of faith then that is fine, we are at an impass (Princess Bride, great movie), and this has been a pleasurable dialogue. However, if you do have reasons for believing that foreknowledge of decisions is contradictory to free will, then I am intersted in knowing them.

I obviously don't agree with the calvinists.

exile

February 11th 2005, 07:17 AM

Foreknowledge is not, in itself, incompatible with free will.

1.If I have a TV set which can be tuned to show future events, but I can not influence those events, this has no effect on free will.

2.If I am omnipotent but cannot see the future (I am not omniscient) then
I cannot know what the consequences of an action is (such as creating free human beings). Therefore I might need to "fine tune" by working miracles.
In this case, free will exists, but is limited by my having the ability to
intervene in events.

3.If, however, I am also omnipotent AND can alter the course of future events (so the TV set is showing me what will happen if I do X rather than Y) then
I can only allow free will if I am willing to accept the consequences (which of course I know) - for example, the existence of sin, and the possibility that people may not obey me. This then raises the possibility of me not being omnibenevolent. The circle can be squared by assuming that I, being God, have some unknowable (to humans) reason for allowing sin and evil: or that "good" and my actions or commands are the same by definition.
In this case we do have free will, because God allows it, but God is ultimately responsible for evil and sin - but may have unfathomable reasons for allowing it.

So: God can only be omnipotent, omniscient and omnibenevolent
by defining "good" in a sense that does not accord with "good" as normally understood. That is, God has some unknowable plan in mind that will benefit us in the end, or God's definition of goodness is radically different from ours.
That is, if we abort a fetus, that's bad, if God aborts one, that's good.

What do I surmise from the Bible? Depends on how literally one reads it. My own inclination is to take option (2) - that God cannot see the future. Events such as the flood make no sense if he can. Option (3) looks like a later accretion to me.

Of course, I personally don't believe in God at all. I can't prove, however, that no supernatural being created the universe. I think I can be reasonably sure that the "omnieverything" God of Christian theology is logically impossible without ditching any meaningful definition of "good".

zorathruster

February 11th 2005, 09:21 AM

A theory of quantum gravity wouldn't overturn GR. It would actually unify GR with QM.
I have read up on some basics about String Theory so that is what I'm most familiar with.

I am certain that most physicist say that GR is incompatable with Quantum Theory. ref: Brian Greene "The Elegant Universe".

zorathruster

February 12th 2005, 07:54 PM

There is a third option. That option is that God's foreknowledge is cause by events that have not happened yet. You keep asserting that choices aren't free if they are know before they are made. I see no reason to accept that and you still haven't given one. If you are just take that claim to be true on the basis of faith then that is fine, we are at an impass (Princess Bride, great movie), and this has been a pleasurable dialogue. However, if you do have reasons for believing that foreknowledge of decisions is contradictory to free will, then I am intersted in knowing them.

I obviously don't agree with the calvinists.
OK lets back up and go to see Mr Webster:

1. Act of choosing; the voluntary act of selecting or
separating from two or more things that which is
preferred; the determination of the mind in preferring one
thing to another; election.
[1913 Webster]

2. The power or opportunity of choosing; option.
[1913 Webster]

Choice there is not, unless the thing which we take
be so in our power that we might have refused it.
--Hooker.
[1913 Webster]

In accordance with Websters definition of choice, it is necessary that there be a selection between two or more options. By allowing foreknowledge you have eliminated all options not taken. It is impossible for one to select other than that which is foreseen. You cannot refuse the option you will select. Therefore, foreknowledge prevents all "non-selected" items from even being considered, you will select the one you are designated to select. Since there is at that point only one selection it is not a choice.

exile

February 14th 2005, 10:30 AM

All that means is that God knows what choice you will make. I don't see that invalidates free will UNLESS God has the power to influence or mandate your choice. Even so the Christian theist will argue that God is, in pursuit of a higher good, allowing you to choose anyway.

It is arguable that having God see the future and be omnipotent, since it
results in logical contradictions, is not possible (so God cannot actually see the future).

Not sure what the "official" Christian position is.

Heathen Dawn

February 14th 2005, 11:36 AM

when i think of it to me anyways "God's plan" always messes up free will, so do we, or dont we have free will, explain please

If everything past, present and future is already in God’s mind, then we can have only the illusion of free will. If everything is predetermined, whether by God as classical (omnimax-holding) monotheists say, or by the particles as metaphysical naturalists say (cf William Provine), then free will can’t but be an illusion.

I hold neither to materialism nor to omnimax theism, so I have no problem assuming that free will is absolutely real. Even so, free will does not mean the ability to make totally uncoërced decisions, as the latest tsunami shows most clearly.

TrinityKicker

February 14th 2005, 02:21 PM

In accordance with Websters definition of choice, it is necessary that there be a selection between two or more options. By allowing foreknowledge you have eliminated all options not taken. It is impossible for one to select other than that which is foreseen. You cannot refuse the option you will select. Therefore, foreknowledge prevents all "non-selected" items from even being considered, you will select the one you are designated to select. Since there is at that point only one selection it is not a choice.zorathruster, We don't disagree on the definition of free will, but you have yet to give a reason for equating foreknowledge with lack of choice. The options not taken are not eliminated. They are simply the ones that will not be choosen.

The claim that it is impossible for one to select other than that which is forseen is simply to say that foreknowledge is perfectly accurate. It doesn't follow that foreknowledge destroys free will.

Foreknowledge is caused by the future.

zorathruster

February 16th 2005, 03:28 PM

The claim that it is impossible for one to select other than that which is forseen is simply to say that foreknowledge is perfectly accurate. It doesn't follow that foreknowledge destroys free will.

Foreknowledge is caused by the future.
Suppose I arrayed three boxes in front of you and told you take a choice. The assumption is you can choose any of the 3. If I say choose one but that can only be number 2 would you still consider it a choice? If there are two other boxes there which you cannot choose, does it still constitute choice? I say no. I say when I eliminate by what ever means all other options, it is no longer a choice no matter how many boxes are present in addition to your allowed selection.

Freewill is based on the assumption you have choice between options. Foreknowledge takes that away and gives you only one possible option the same as my directive that you can only select number 2.

Why would foreknowledge be caused by the future and what exactly does that mean? How would that somehow change your approved choice?

Thedonhopeless

February 16th 2005, 06:11 PM

I've been curious for awhile because I'm not quite sure what people mean by "God's Plan" when i think of it to me anyways "God's plan" always messes up free will, so do we, or dont we have free will, explain please

God does have a plan, your free will is where you wish to be within that plan. YOu are free to follow his plan or free to follow you own. I fyou follow his you go to him , if you follow yours, well you end up on yer own.

TrinityKicker

February 17th 2005, 07:24 PM

Suppose I arrayed three boxes in front of you and told you take a choice. The assumption is you can choose any of the 3. If I say choose one but that can only be number 2 would you still consider it a choice? If there are two other boxes there which you cannot choose, does it still constitute choice? I say no. I say when I eliminate by what ever means all other options, it is no longer a choice no matter how many boxes are present in addition to your allowed selection.

Freewill is based on the assumption you have choice between options. Foreknowledge takes that away and gives you only one possible option the same as my directive that you can only select number 2.

Why would foreknowledge be caused by the future and what exactly does that mean? How would that somehow change your approved choice?God didn't eliminate choices. He simply knows the choices before we make them. That is what foreknowledge is. If God were to make it impossible for us to choose then the reason He would know our choices before we make them would be becaue we would have no choices, but that doesn't follow simply because He knows our choices.

I think foreknowledge is caused by the future because that's the only way for God to know the future and us to have free will. When you ask how that would change my approved choice, you are question-begging. My claim is that I don't have some particular option that I have to choose. My choice is free.

OckhamsRazor

February 21st 2005, 07:58 PM

I am certain that most physicist say that GR is incompatable with Quantum Theory. ref: Brian Greene "The Elegant Universe".
It is true that physicists would say the GR is incompatable with QM. It is not true the most physicists therefore reject one for the other. Both have significant imperical data to support them. The incompatablity actually occures on the submicroscopic level. The reason there is a search for a unified theory is in order to resolve the conflict between GR and QM. If you read Greenes book on this I think you'll see what I'm pointing out.

So, my point is, that we cannot say it most be free will or omnipotence. There may be a third option that finds middle ground between these two. Just because we can't conceive of it doesn't mean it cannot be. I admitt that this is a rather weak argument. It's more of an illustration of an example of two seeming confliction ideas that are both true.

I'm a Calvanist for the most part.

OckhamsRazor

February 21st 2005, 08:04 PM

I would also like to point out that your difficulties with these two grand concepts, free will, omnipotence, are not trivial. Many have wrestled with this issue over the millenia. I understand why you have objections.

zorathruster

February 22nd 2005, 12:56 AM

Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe. Chapter 1 p 3 "General relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right."

OckhamsRazor

February 22nd 2005, 12:20 PM

Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe. Chapter 1 p 3 "General relativity and quantum mechanics cannot both be right."
I've read the book and you're taking this comment out of context.

"Through years of research, physicists have experimentally confirmed to almost unimaginable accuracy virtually all predictions made by each of these theories."

~Brian Greene, The Elegant Universe. Chapter 1 pg. 3

zorathruster

February 22nd 2005, 02:33 PM

Doth we have the same authority saying different things?

"...your quote...But these same theoretical tools inexorably lead to another disturbing conclusion: As they are currently formulated, ... my quote...The two theories underlying the tremendous progress of physics during the last hundred years - progress that has explained the expansion of the heavens and the fundamental structure of matter - are mutually incompatible." Brian Greene, The elegant universe Chp 1 p 3.

OK so we have an impasse. I see your point but I feel the caveate of mine points toward more than just an incompatability. In deference to you, how could I better word that?

marik

February 22nd 2005, 02:59 PM

My first Post on this Forum.

I personally do not believe in "FREE" Will. It is not free because our will is subject to our nature, our sinful nature, the desires of our flesh. Romans 3:10-18

Man cannot pursue Godly things of his own power. God must use man to accomplish His will, whether Good or bad, and God does that. Just as man cannot seek God, or understand the spiritual realm, man also can not understand is natural self, where he steps, and why. Deuteronomy 29:4 Proverbs 20:24

If by free will, you mean we can accomplish anything we want, then no, there can not be free will. God does not have two wills. God does not have a will, and then a Permissive will. God has one will. God, with his divine foreknowledge, has ordained and predestined everything that will be. God knows the heart of man, and he knew it from before time. God is the author of circumstance. Not only did He know what we would do, He knew what He would do. And just as controls the heavens, counts the stars, and names em, he know all circumstances in each of our lives, how and when and where and why this person or that would come into our lives and affect us.

God, knowing our hearts, has even bound us over to disobedience. Romans 11:32

I'm not saying we do not have a choice. On the contrary, I already stated we choose sin. It is our nature to choose sin. Thats why the Fall of man was so grave. Why we are so depraved, and cannot do good without God's active supernatural works. This is what accomplishes his Goal, His purpose, His Will.

My two cents anyway.

Marik

OckhamsRazor

February 22nd 2005, 05:32 PM

I see your point but I feel the caveate of mine points toward more than just an incompatability. In deference to you, how could I better word that?
I'm not certain what you mean in the above statement. I'll respond the best I can. What I'm saying is that if you read the book, you'll notice that the "mutually exclusive" phrase is only true as you get down to the submicroscopic level.
What I mean is this, I can design a rocket ship that is built around the principles of QM. I can then use GR to work out it's course. Both will work and on the same project. The distinction isn't a big deal untill you start to try and work out a unified theory. Reductionism comes to halt. What Greene is saying is that both ideas enjoy enormous empirical support. He is essentially saying that they are both true. We need to get past the stand still in reductionism. So, Greene suggests that string theory solves this problem.
To shed some light on the stand still:

GR tells us that space/time is smooth. QM says that the subatomic world is very rough and violent. This doesn't become a problem until you get to trying to merge the two theories.

zorathruster

February 22nd 2005, 09:37 PM

GR tells us that space/time is smooth. QM says that the subatomic world is very rough and violent. This doesn't become a problem until you get to trying to merge the two theories.
As I understand M-theory, it is an attempt at merging the two into a unified theory. The hold out appears to be gravity which likes the GR world. The only possible merging would occur under proposed particles like a "graviton" thus GR becomes only an anomoly of the effect of such particles. If this is true then the two theories must resolve to one. But like Newton's theories only describe special cases of gravity maybe GR only describes special instances itself.

zorathruster

February 22nd 2005, 09:45 PM

God must use man to accomplish His will, whether Good or bad, and God does that.

If you are that controlled by God for both good and bad, you have described a puppet show. The puppets cannot be held responsible for what the puppet master directs them to do. Once you have negated free will thusly, you have eliminated the moral position taken by society to punish offenders. If God did it who are we as men to question or interfere with the actions of a God? It also negates the idea of hell. How could a God possibly hold a man guilty for an action that he himself directed? Too many problems here for even theists to buy in. :wink:

Slayer-2004

February 24th 2005, 01:29 PM

the problem I see with free will vs. omniscience and omnipotence really lies in gods infallibility . If it was just free will and omniscience their are ways to get around the two contradicting each other ( Ive seen this ) But now that god has a plan and he is infallible we run into a problem .

In order for it to be possible for god to be infallible , it means that we as human beings cannot possibly do anything other then what he has predicted using his omniscience or else we would be going against this infallibility . I would have to agree with the atheist side here - it really comes out as a puppet show .

marik

February 24th 2005, 02:40 PM

He is the potter, we are the clay. Not robots, not puppets, but God molds us, and as I said earlier, God is the author of circumstance. God tests us repeatedly, and his foreknowledge knew what we would do. His divine foreknowledge was the basis for his Will. We cannot suprise God. He knows Everything that we did, and will do, in every circumstance. God doesn't change his mind. God isn't playing chess with us, waiting for us to make our move before he makes His.

As I said, our choices are not freely willed. We are slaves to sin. Every choice we make on this earth follows the desire of our flesh, our natural man. Only God can open the heart for us to make a choice to follow a different path.

Controlled by God, or guided by Him. The Assyrians, the Babylonians, the Medo Persians, all thought they were doing what they were doing out of free will. Yet God says that He raised em up, that He guided their steps, that He, (knowing their hearts) ordained them to the works they did. God is not the author of sin, but knowing Man's heart, coupled with his divine foreknowledge, he can certainly work all things into His ultimate plan.

God doesn't have to condemn us, and he doesnt control us to condemnation. Sin has already destined us, it is certain fatalism. We are definitely going to sin, we all do. And sin leads to death. No man can freely choose to not sin. He follows his nature.

marik

zorathruster

February 24th 2005, 06:23 PM

God doesn't change his mind.

Of course then the bible is just wrong when it says:

Exodus 32:14 (King James Version) 14And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

1 Samuel 15:35 (King James Version) 35And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

2 Samuel 24:16 (King James Version) 16And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

marik

March 1st 2005, 02:30 PM

Hmm, You quoted from 1 Samuel, but did you continue?

1 Samuel 15:29

"And he who is the Glory of Israel will not lie, nor will he change his mind, for he is not human that he should change his mind!" NLT

"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie nor relent. For He is not a man, that He should relent." NKJV

"And also the Strength of Israel will not lie or repent; for He is not a man, that He should repent." Amplified

Numbers 23:19

"God is not a man, that He should lie,
Nor a son of man, that He should repent.
Has He said, and will He not do?
Or has He spoken, and will He not make it good?" NKJV

"God is not a man, that he should lie.
He is not a human, that he should change his mind. Has he ever spoken and failed to act?
Has he ever promised and not carried it through?" NLT

"God is not a man who lies,
or a son of man who changes His mind.
Does He speak and not act,
or promise and not fulfill?" Holman

God knew beforehand, why should he change his mind? Was God surprised? Or did God already know what was going to happen. We know God tests people, does this mean he does not already know the outcome, or know our hearts? (2 Chronicles 32:31) If God does not already know, then He is not Omniscient and He does not have divine foreknowledge. Does this mean our God truly isnt all powerful. Is He really God? James 1:17 certainly says God is unchanging: "Every good gift and every perfect gift is from above, and comes down from the Father of lights, with whom there is no variation or shadow of turning."

God's word doesn't change. It lasts forever. Isaiah 40:6 Psalm 119: 89, 151-152

Psalm 33:11

"The counsel of the LORD stands forever,
the plans of His heart from generation to generation." Holman

"But the LORD's plans stand firm forever;
his intentions can never be shaken." NLT

"The counsel of the LORD stands forever,
The plans of His heart to all generations." NKJV

God doesn't change His mind because of Sin. He already knew we would Sin. God doesn't break His promises.

Hebrews 6:17:

"Because God wanted to show His unchangeable purpose even more clearly to the heirs of the promise, He guaranteed it with an oath, " Holman

"Thus God, determining to show more abundantly to the heirs of promise the immutability of His counsel, confirmed it by an oath, " NKJV

"God also bound himself with an oath, so that those who received the promise could be perfectly sure that he would never change his mind." NLT

God Does NOT change His mind.

Marik

OckhamsRazor

March 1st 2005, 04:39 PM

I wouldn't use the O.T. Verses that have been brought up to support the idea of God changing His mind. God mentioned going down to see if the wickedness in Sodom was really as bad as what He had heard. I would say that this is poetic licence. We know that God doesn't need to actually go somewhere to find out waht is going on at that place. He is already everywhere.

zorathruster

March 2nd 2005, 03:13 PM

Oh how nice, when confronted with specifics you can "go elsewhere" and reinterpret or attempt to invalidate something in the Bible. Oops, invalidate something in the bible? How is that possible for a perfect work? How would a work give two different opposing assertions?

Fact is there are lots and lots of quotes throughout the work that conflict with your perception. In a perfect work this is would not be possible.

It really doesn't matter how many alternative quotes you come up with from the bible, the fact that those three in particular say God changes his mind prove the different writers had different ideas about the nature of God from the ideas you site and obviously from the ideas you hold. This should be impossible for a perfect work if it was coherent.

Thank you very much for the alternative points because it proves the point of explicitly opposing positions about the same topic in the same work. In other words, the bible is incoherent.

marik

March 3rd 2005, 07:08 PM

Exodus 32:14 (King James Version) 14And the LORD repented of the evil which he thought to do unto his people.

1 Samuel 15:35 (King James Version) 35And Samuel came no more to see Saul until the day of his death: nevertheless Samuel mourned for Saul: and the LORD repented that he had made Saul king over Israel.

2 Samuel 24:16 (King James Version) 16And when the angel stretched out his hand upon Jerusalem to destroy it, the LORD repented him of the evil, and said to the angel that destroyed the people, It is enough: stay now thine hand. And the angel of the LORD was by the threshingplace of Araunah the Jebusite.

What, these 3?

They do not say God changed his mind. God is sorrowful, But God doesnt change his mind. God can be sad , or angry, at sin, but he has never broken a promise, or played chess with us, waiting to see what we would do before he does something. He not only knows, he knows well in advance, before we were born, all our actions. He knows who what when where why and how, before hand. God is the author of circumstance. God knew Saul would betray Him. Even knowing that before hand did not prevent God from establishing Saul as King. Sauls sin still grieved God. But God's will be done. God had already appointed a new king LONG before Saul sinned, and LONG before God created Saul, knowing Saul would sin. King David was already established as a replacment for Saul before Saul sinned. God does NOT deviate from His plans.

Nice try, but those 3 verses do NOT say God changes His mind.

(dodge parry thrust)

Care for another round?

Marik

OckhamsRazor

March 3rd 2005, 09:46 PM

Joshua Turley

April 16th 2005, 01:44 AM

I think to get to the bottom of this first you need to agree on a definition of free-will.

This however can get pretty complicated fast. Does free will mean you have the power to choose between one action or another, without being forced to do so and without doing such at random--a consciouss decision?

Do we always do what we want to do (the greatest desire prevailing)?

Do we get to choose the desires that regulate our descision making?

Is this creating a viscious cycle?

What really is free-will?

Joshua Turley

April 16th 2005, 01:56 AM

Swardus

July 8th 2005, 08:14 AM

I don't buy sin nature. You'll notice that Paul is the only one who really establishes this doctrine. Nowhere in the whole bible is anything like this brought forth. Except in a psalm where the guy was humbling himself figuratively.

It seems to me that Paul was a sinner, but being the exemplar for christianity to the gentiles it was easier for him to relieve that kind of stress by saying, "it's not me that sins, it's my body or my nature." Seems to me he's dodging responsibility. If it were our nature then how can we be held responsible when its not our fault, we didn't construct our own natures.

The sin nature is what we were before receiving God's mercy and grace through the blood shed by Jesus, the perfect sacrifice. When we accept Christ into our lives, we are making a choice of free will. It's like the old saying "You can lead a horse to water, but you can't make him drink." God leads us to the "living water", but it is through free will that we drink. When we are His, he guides and directs us. However, we still have to deal with our sin nature, which is what Paul was writing about. And we are still dealing with our free will when God sets before us choices. Metophically speaking, One is balancing himself while walking on top of the fence called "free will". To one side is the "sin nature" yard, and to the other is the field "God's wil for our lives". At various points in the fence, there are obstacles that require us to make a choice to get around them. We are allowed to hop off on whichever side we choose.

Paul was talking about our sin nature, which is also the urge to satisfy those desires that God calls us not to do. In the context of these passages to which you refer, he is explaining to others that "Hey, I have to deal with these issues, too." Paul has written the most number of epistles than any other apostle. He was a great choice for an apostle, because he was much more humble than any of the others. He didn't sort of "speak down" from a place of authority, but maintained himself on the level of the status quo. He related to them, and showed them that, other than Christ, no person is ever going to be perfect in this life past, present, or future. But he always encouraged them to "each run your own race", continuing on to a great reward. The goal being not to strive in competion with others, but to complete the race. It is an endurance race in which we strive for person, spiritual improvement.

Paul also encouraged us to pray for forgiveness of our sins that have us stepping out of the will of God, and trusting in our sin nature.

As for you Quanum Physics guys, this is not your area for discussing Unified Field Theory. But, before you leave, I highly recommend reading "Flatland: A Romance Betweeen two Dimensions". And the 3-D guy- in this alegory He represents God.