NationStates Jolt Archive

So you think everyone who believes they have received guidance from God is simply lying?

Self-delusional, yes, with a hint of recognized self-indulged ignorance. Example "God told me blah blah blah while I was praying..." "But how do you know it was from god?" "I just do", etc.

That's a lot of lies over the past 4,000 years....

Indeed. This is why I used the 'crutch' metaphor, because it seems like many people need to believe that they've somehow been contacted by a higher power in a positive way.

I came up with this the other day whilst in France on a school trip; it's an argument against God in the classical sense of Him/Her being both free from sin and omniscient.
If you can see any flaws then be brutal and tell me; I'm an agnostic so it won't make much difference.
I just enjoy philosophy.

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

What do you think?
I don't want a religious fight/war; just a philosophical/theological discussion.

Ilaer

You just want a philosophical/theological discussion for the hundredth time, give it a rest already.

Self-delusional, yes, with a hint of recognized self-indulged ignorance. Example "God told me blah blah blah while I was praying..." "But how do you know it was from god?" "I just do", etc.



Indeed. This is why I used the 'crutch' metaphor, because it seems like many people need to believe that they've somehow been contacted by a higher power in a positive way.

Of course, not every Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. claim to have gotten a "message" from God. Just a few, and those few stand out as being saints, Saviors (Christ), Prophets, etc.

That's a lot of lies over the past 4,000 years....4000 ?

Of course, not every Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. claim to have gotten a "message" from God. Just a few, and those few stand out as being saints, Saviors (Christ), Prophets, etc.

No, many people just on this board have claimed to have been given some kind of a religious experience, be it a message or an act of god, or whatever - I believe this to be one reason why christianity has lasted as long as it has, because so many followers claim to have connected with god himself.

You just want a philosophical/theological discussion for the hundredth time, give it a rest already.

And this has nothing at all to do with the fact that it's a thread that questions your personal religion, right Kor?

4000 ?

I suppose he tacked on an extra 2000 for jews.

Self-delusional, yes, with a hint of recognized self-indulged ignorance. Example "God told me blah blah blah while I was praying..." "But how do you know it was from god?" "I just do", etc.

Lying and being delusional are not the same thing.


Of course, not every Christian, Jew, Muslim, etc. claim to have gotten a "message" from God. Just a few, and those few stand out as being saints, Saviors (Christ), Prophets, etc.

On the contrary. With the possible exception of Judaism (probably depending on the particular sect), most Abrahamic religions do believe that we, as individuals, receive guidance from God. Prophets, etc. get much more detailed messages and are compelled to write them down and spread them.

Lying and being delusional are not the same thing.





Granted.

No, many people just on this board have claimed to have been given some kind of a religious experience, be it a message or an act of god, or whatever - I believe this to be one reason why christianity has lasted as long as it has, because so many followers claim to have connected with god himself.But without ever providing (independent) confirmation for their claims.

You just want a philosophical/theological discussion for the hundredth time, give it a rest already.

What's that supposed to mean?
This was my original thread on the subject.

Ilaer

But without ever providing (independent) confirmation for their claims.

How do you provide independent confirmation for personal experience and perception?

And this has nothing at all to do with the fact that it's a thread that questions your personal religion, right Kor.


It has to do with people not being able to understand what has already been explained numerous times, yet you still keep bringing it up over & over. I'm tired of hearing your whining and complaining, I have told you the truth many times but you never get it. So why should we go through it again?

What's that supposed to mean?
This was my original thread on the subject.

Ilaer

It means this subject has been beaten to death already so the point is now moot.

It means this subject has been beaten to death already so the point is now moot.

I fail to see how the point is moot.
None of the sides concerned have claimed victory and it is possibly one of the greatest questions facing mankind.
If you do not like people expressing their opinions and discussing things intelligently then I politely request that you leave this thread, perhaps NS General altogether and go read up on what an internet forum is designed for.

Ilaer

How do you provide independent confirmation for personal experience and perception?Make your experiences in public space with trustworthy witnesses and at least one tv camera. You know, we want to be sure, and not just take part in someone's personal delusions. ;)
Or just have someone repeat someone else's experiences.

It has to do with people not being able to understand what has already been explained numerous times, yet you still keep bringing it up over & over. I'm tired of hearing your whining and complaining, I have told you the truth many times but you never get it. So why should we go through it again?What 'truth' have you told?

It has to do with people not being able to understand what has already been explained numerous times, yet you still keep bringing it up over & over. I'm tired of hearing your whining and complaining, I have told you the truth many times but you never get it. So why should we go through it again?

You are being somewhat arrogant to claim that what you have stated is the truth with no attempt to explain why.
Especially in an argument which has not ended for centuries because currently no-one has thought of a solid reason for any position.

Make your experiences in public space with trustworthy witnesses and at least one tv camera. You know, we want to be sure, and not just take part in someone's personal delusions. ;)
Or just have someone repeat someone else's experiences.

From what I've heard religious experiences tend more to be subtle changes of viewpoint.
I doubt that this idea would work.

Ilaer

But without ever providing (independent) confirmation for their claims.

That's like asking someone to prove how something tastes. You can't, it's impossible. I've had my own experiences, my friends have had theirs. We're all convinced that they are acts of God.

That's like asking someone to prove how something tastes. You can't, it's impossible. I've had my own experiences, my friends have had theirs. We're all convinced that they are acts of God.and your personal convictions are universally valid because... ?

and your personal convictions are universally valid because... ?

The same message is generally conveyed?

Ilaer

The same message is generally conveyed?Is it?
Normally the 'message' depends entirely what the respective person already believes.
When I have visions of god, he never tells me anything that would be similar to what I hear from 'abrahamic believers'.

and your personal convictions are universally valid because... ?

They aren't. You can't prove them. If we could, then this thread wouldn't exist, nor would the thousands of other debates that go on about religion, because we could prove it to you. However, I'm personally convinced that there is a God. Because I've had my own experiences. I'm sure you will one day. Whether you'll recognise it or not, or choose to accept it, is up to you.

But without ever providing (independent) confirmation for their claims.

How could that be possible?

They aren't. You can't prove them. If we could, then this thread wouldn't exist, nor would the thousands of other debates that go on about religion, because we could prove it to you. However, I'm personally convinced that there is a God. Because I've had my own experiences. I'm sure you will one day. Whether you'll recognise it or not, or choose to accept it, is up to you.But, look, all we want is universally applicable statements about god. Valid information. Personal, um, experiences are useless as long as they cannot be confirmed. I'm personally convinced that there is a god. Because I've had my own experiences. But that's not usable as general info on the issue. savvy?

Make your experiences in public space with trustworthy witnesses and at least one tv camera. You know, we want to be sure, and not just take part in someone's personal delusions. ;)
Or just have someone repeat someone else's experiences.

No one can repeat someone else's experiences. That's the problem with personal experience and perception. You could videotape someone having a religious experience, and you still wouldn't know what they actually experienced.


That's like asking someone to prove how something tastes. You can't, it's impossible. I've had my own experiences, my friends have had theirs. We're all convinced that they are acts of God.

Good analogy!


and your personal convictions are universally valid because... ?

They aren't. That's why they're personal convictions.

But, look, all we want is universally applicable statements about god.

What was the old saying? "Wish into one hand and shit into the other. See which one fills up faster."

If you want a universally applicable (and demonstrable) statement about god, you're going to be waiting a really, really, really, really long time.

Valid information. Personal, um, experiences are useless as long as they cannot be confirmed. I'm personally convinced that there is a god. Because I've had my own experiences. But that's not usable as general info on the issue. savvy?

Personal experiences are all I need. It isn't useful to convince you, but then, I'm not trying to convince you. Your own experiences will lead you to your own beliefs (or lack thereof).

How could you convince me that you have self-awareness? How would I know? How could I possibly perceive your self-awareness?

can't.

If we were given free will upon creation, and were created to be perfect, we would not have fallen. Perfect creatures cannot fall, otherwise they simply aren't perfect or they are and they were meant to fall.



God, being omniscient, will know what you do in the future. God, being your creator, has created you with the knowledge of what his creation will do, and has created you still. He knows you will sin, because he has created a sinner. He knows you will murder, because he has created a killer. He knows I will hate him, because he has created an indignant christian.

He's created us in these roles he knew we would play.

Every time you sin, it's his fault, because he knew you would do it, but did nothing to stop it in the process of creation.



Another reason I dislike god - he was so chatty and personal in the OT and even sometimes in the NT, but for 2000 years he's been quiet, not answering, not talking, not announcing anything, not doing anything.

And don't start with "you have to listen, he'll speak to you through prayer" because that's outright lies.


I realize I'm being a bit aggressive in this post - I'm getting the point across that I have a strong hatred for god.


yeah thats coming across.

but the thing is you dont HAVE to believe that god is that way. its not a necessary point of view given theological thought throughout the ages.

we can pick the view of god that makes the best sense to us, we dont have to take the stupid ideas that were handed to us as children. you know the ones like "its all a part of god's plan" when someone you love dies suddenly. or "god doesnt give us a burden that is too hard for us to carry" when bad things happen to us.

not that im saying that you have to believe in god at all, just that if you want to, you are free to have an idea of god that doesnt make him the stupid selfish bastard you think he is.

No, many people just on this board have claimed to have been given some kind of a religious experience, be it a message or an act of god, or whatever - I believe this to be one reason why christianity has lasted as long as it has, because so many followers claim to have connected with god himself.

I understand that a one-on-one direct connection with God is important in Christianity. But not everyone who is led by God's guidance proclaims it to the world. There is a difference between experiencing something and telling someone about something you experienced.

On a more important note: You can't prove that someone had or didn't have a spiritual experience, especially since in Christianity it's a one-on-one deal with God.

You can't prove it, and you can't disprove it.

That basically summed up the reason that Christianity isn't the only religion in the world - it requires faith in something that cannot be explained logically or scientifically.

If we were given free will upon creation, and were created to be perfect, we would not have fallen. Perfect creatures cannot fall, otherwise they simply aren't perfect or they are and they were meant to fall.



God, being omniscient, will know what you do in the future. God, being your creator, has created you with the knowledge of what his creation will do, and has created you still. He knows you will sin, because he has created a sinner. He knows you will murder, because he has created a killer. He knows I will hate him, because he has created an indignant christian.

He's created us in these roles he knew we would play.

Every time you sin, it's his fault, because he knew you would do it, but did nothing to stop it in the process of creation.



Another reason I dislike god - he was so chatty and personal in the OT and even sometimes in the NT, but for 2000 years he's been quiet, not answering, not talking, not announcing anything, not doing anything.

And don't start with "you have to listen, he'll speak to you through prayer" because that's outright lies.


I realize I'm being a bit aggressive in this post - I'm getting the point across that I have a strong hatred for god.

God created human beings. Yes. What if I paint a picture? Does that mean I control what that picture will do in the future or what will come of it? In a way yes, because I am the owner of the picture. But God has specifically given us free will to do what we want, unlike the picture, which belongs to me, and I can either sell it or give it up to a museum, or hang it around my house - whatever.

God does not create everyone the same way. That would be boring and pointless. Instead, He disperses his gifts among us when He creates us. Some people may be, for example, super smart, while others athletic, while others still musical. We are all blessed in one way or another.

Now, the way that we are blessed vaguely determines what we want to do. If someone is born with heavy stuttering, they will most likely not be a great political leader. If someone is born without a leg, they will most likely not become great swimmers. There are exceptions of course, because people have free will to do whatever they want.

God created human beings. Yes. What if I paint a picture? Does that mean I control what that picture will do in the future or what will come of it? In a way yes, because I am the owner of the picture. But God has specifically given us free will to do what we want, unlike the picture, which belongs to me, and I can either sell it or give it up to a museum, or hang it around my house - whatever.

God does not create everyone the same way. That would be boring and pointless. Instead, He disperses his gifts among us when He creates us. Some people may be, for example, super smart, while others athletic, while others still musical. We are all blessed in one way or another.

Now, the way that we are blessed vaguely determines what we want to do. If someone is born with heavy stuttering, they will most likely not be a great political leader. If someone is born without a leg, they will most likely not become great swimmers. There are exceptions of course, because people have free will to do whatever they want.

Except that the picture you painted is not conscious.

God could have. God also could have created us all with complete knowledge. But then what would there be to figure out and learn?

I'd rather not "learn" by having millions of children die in agony needlessly every year, thanks.

But to each his or her own, I suppose.

Except that the picture you painted is not conscious.

So?

I came up with this the other day whilst in France on a school trip; it's an argument against God in the classical sense of Him/Her being both free from sin and omniscient.
If you can see any flaws then be brutal and tell me; I'm an agnostic so it won't make much difference.
I just enjoy philosophy.

Lovely. I quite enjoy it myself. :)

If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.

You're going to need to explain this conditional in far more detail. It seems to assume that God does not have the ability to see all things while not interfering in all things, which will be a problem if you're trying to convince any theist with a modicum of intelligence.

If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

A couple of difficulties here. It seems odd to suggest that if there is only the illusion of free will, then God is not the greatest power, then there must be a greater. For one, because the argument assumes that God has a compelling interest in transcendental free will and would enact it if possible. For two, because the argument assumes that if God is not the greatest then there must be a greater. It could be that God is the greatest, but simply not able to do a few things. To use an analogy, it's hardly proof of a higher power that I can't create things ex nihilo.

What do you think?
I don't want a religious fight/war; just a philosophical/theological discussion.

Ilaer

I think it's a piss-poor argument. Stick with the more traditional version of the Problem of Evil. It's far more effective.

So?

So...I have a problem with the analogy because I am not a painting, because I am sentient, because I'm am more complex than a painting, and I cannot be undone with paint thinner. So other than the whole point you were making with the post, we can agree on what you said in the post.

I fail to see how the point is moot.
None of the sides concerned have claimed victory and it is possibly one of the greatest questions facing mankind.
If you do not like people expressing their opinions and discussing things intelligently then I politely request that you leave this thread, perhaps NS General altogether and go read up on what an internet forum is designed for.

Ilaer


It is the " greatest " question facing mankind, but it seems few want to hear the truth because it offends them in some way. I have explained my beliefs many times in these forums. It seems to me that there are very few people here who want to except what I say as the truth as it has been taught to me. Usually I am included in a negative generalization of christain people, that says we are all hipocrites, or worse. Certainly there are a percentage that would fall into those catagories. The Lord himself says in the Bible that not all people who CLAIM to be Christian will see Heaven. I am not trying to force anyone to except the lord, I only wish to give you all the chance to do so if you wish because I care about people. But I don't like making the offer then having it thrown back in my face as something considered to be less then worthless. Only to see a similiar thread follow shortly where I must endure the same treatment again. So I will put it to you all like this, if you are truely interested in the Christian faith I am willing to teach you what I know of it. But if all you wish to do is make fun of my Lord then I wash my hands of you because the Bible says not to casts your pearls among swine.

It is the " greatest " question facing mankind, but it seems few want to hear the truth because it offends them in some way. I have explained my beliefs many times in these forums. It seems to me that there are very few people here who want to except what I say as the truth as it has been taught to me. Usually I am included in a negative generalization of christain people, that says we are all hipocrites, or worse. Certainly there are a percentage that would fall into those catagories. The Lord himself says in the Bible that not all people who CLAIM to be Christian will see Heaven. I am not trying to force anyone to except the lord, I only wish to give you all the chance to do so if you wish because I care about people. But I don't like making the offer then having it thrown back in my face as something considered to be less then worthless. Only to see a similiar thread follow shortly where I must endure the same treatment again. So I will put it to you all like this, if you are truely interested in the Christian faith I am willing to teach you what I know of it. But if all you wish to do is make fun of my Lord then I wash my hands of you because the Bible says not to casts your pearls among swine.

What are you saying, really? I fail to see the meaning in this lengthy text besides your bitching.
And are you making those spelling mistakes on purpose? (except =/= accept e.g.)

So...I have a problem with the analogy because I am not a painting, because I am sentient, because I'm am more complex than a painting, and I cannot be undone with paint thinner. So other than the whole point you were making with the post, we can agree on what you said in the post.

The picture thing was just a remark - what I really meant in that post was what was said below - if you disagree with that, then we can argue. The picture was a pointless metaphor used to stir up a little stale humor.

What are you saying, really? I fail to see the meaning in this lengthy text besides your bitching.
And are you making those spelling mistakes on purpose? (except =/= accept e.g.)

He's asking Ilaer if he's actually curious about God and/or Christianity or if he's just making fun of God.

He's asking Ilaer if he's actually curious about God and/or Christianity or if he's just making fun of God.Well, he sounds like a Sith master luring a new apprentice...

What are you saying, really? I fail to see the meaning in this lengthy text besides your bitching.
And are you making those spelling mistakes on purpose? (except =/= accept e.g.)


It is the " greatest " question facing mankind, but it seems few want to hear the truth because it offends them in some way. I have explained my beliefs many times in these forums. It seems to me that there are very few people here who want to except what I say as the truth as it has been taught to me. Usually I am included in a negative generalization of Christian people, that says we are all hypocrites, or worse. Certainly there are a percentage that would fall into those categories. The Lord himself says in the Bible that not all people who CLAIM to be Christian will see Heaven. I am not trying to force anyone to except the lord, I only wish to give you all the chance to do so if you wish because I care about people. But I don't like making the offer then having it thrown back in my face as something considered to be less then worthless. Only to see a similar thread follow shortly where I must endure the same treatment again. So I will put it to you all like this, if you are truly interested in the Christian faith I am willing to teach you what I know of it. But if all you wish to do is make fun of my Lord then I wash my hands of you because the Bible says not to casts your pearls among swine.


Probly because I typed it to fast and didn't check it. Does this copy make you feel better UB?

It is the " greatest " question facing mankind, but it seems few want to hear the truth because it offends them in some way. I have explained my beliefs many times in these forums. It seems to me that there are very few people here who want to except what I say as the truth as it has been taught to me. Usually I am included in a negative generalization of christain people, that says we are all hipocrites, or worse. Certainly there are a percentage that would fall into those catagories. The Lord himself says in the Bible that not all people who CLAIM to be Christian will see Heaven. I am not trying to force anyone to except the lord, I only wish to give you all the chance to do so if you wish because I care about people. But I don't like making the offer then having it thrown back in my face as something considered to be less then worthless. Only to see a similiar thread follow shortly where I must endure the same treatment again. So I will put it to you all like this, if you are truely interested in the Christian faith I am willing to teach you what I know of it. But if all you wish to do is make fun of my Lord then I wash my hands of you because the Bible says not to casts your pearls among swine.

I find that more than a bit offensive; "the Bible says not to cast your pearls amongst swine" and you even have the audacity, the sheer AUDACITY to suggest that I might make fun of God?
I am an agnostic and thus I question God but I would never mock Him; I would, however, mock you, you who dare to suggest such a thing, you with the sheer arrogance to spout such idiocy - for that is what I consider it when you use it in such a manner, against someone who has done you no harm and bears you no ill will - against someone who wishes only for a discussion.

You claim you have suffered ill treatment; read your post again and consider it from the the view of a moralistic agnostic who loves to have a philosophical debate; I think you'll find that it is very offensive to such a person.

I have not insulted you. I suggest that you consider your words before once again you post.

Ilaer

There's nothing wrong with that... :rolleyes:

It sounds a little, well, pretentious.....

Well, he sounds like a Sith master luring a new apprentice...

There's nothing wrong with that... :rolleyes:

Probly because I typed it to fast and didn't check it. Does this copy make you feel better UB?Not really. There is still the disturbing content. And you still write 'except' instead of 'accept'.

There's nothing wrong with that... :rolleyes:Oh, you are fond of Sith-Christians?

Oh, you are fond of Sith-Christians?

I don't think that's possible but whatever...

I don't think that's possible but whatever...Henceforth he shall be known as Darth Elect-of-god Kormanthor... :rolleyes:

Henceforth he shall be known as Darth Elect-of-god Kormanthor... :rolleyes:

Hehe....Darth Christians....:p

God does not create everyone the same way. That would be boring and pointless. Instead, He disperses his gifts among us when He creates us. Some people may be, for example, super smart, while others athletic, while others still musical. We are all blessed in one way or another.

Now, the way that we are blessed vaguely determines what we want to do. If someone is born with heavy stuttering, they will most likely not be a great political leader. If someone is born without a leg, they will most likely not become great swimmers. There are exceptions of course, because people have free will to do whatever they want.

Free will.....this is a concept I've always had a hard time associating with an omniscient being, and even without I'm not sure I entirely believe in it.

Here goes.

Begin with the assumption that God is omnipresent, omniscient, and transcendent. So no matter what time we believe it to be, everything occurs at the same time for God. He knows the outcome of every probability because each cause is occurring simultaneously with its effect. In essence, he knows what we are going to do before we do, because he has already seen/will see/is seeing it.

Since we are not aware of the choices that lie in our paths to come, we will follow a straight line in God's eye, because he knows what we will choose to do. In this case, it can be argued that our fates, whether we will ultimately end up in Heaven or Hell, are predetermined, because we are already there, at least from God's point of view.

Now assuming that God is omnibenevolent, he wants us to be happy and with him in the afterlife, i.e. he wants us to be in Heaven as opposed to Hell, so he actually affects our decisions without direct intervention, considering that he is transcendent if he directly intervenes, he will cease to be transcendent and therefore omnipresent, and therefore not God. Since God must be God, he must not intervene directly.

Since God cannot interact with his Universe, he cannot give personal communication with any of his creations, and thus not give them proof of his existence, so his believers must have faith that this is the case, that they might be in Heaven with him.

Should God decide to stop being transcendent, in order to interact with the Universe, he must no longer be considered omniscient and omnipresent, and therefore if this occurs, our choices are no longer pointing in a straight line to God, because he can give proof of his existence, and thus change our final destination. If God is no longer omniscient and omnipresent, then the assumptions first made no longer hold, and we can become aware of the choices that we might have to make somewhere down the line and create a divergence from our original predestination, meaning we can change our final destination. In other words, should God decide to stop being transcendent, and therefore omniscient and omnipresent, all bets are off on what can happen.

In order to change the outcome of any particular choice, we must be aware of the choices we are making, and the choices that those choices will lead to. In other words, we have to know the consequences of our actions before we actually take action in order to actually change any outcome.

So, in my estimation, in order for there to be Free Will, we must have the qualities of the only person to truly have it, God. In being transcendent, omniscient and omnipresent, we can choose to stop being so to change the course of our lives by knowing what the end result of a particular choice will be, and to change our decision, but we must be aware of the end result in the first place before we can actually choose to change it.

Ouch. :headbang:

*bump*
This message was brought to you by ELM...Now with fluffles! :fluffle:

And are you making those spelling mistakes on purpose? (except =/= accept e.g.)

"Except" for "accept" is the bestest spellling mistake ever! Never underestimate it!

:fluffle:

But, look, all we want is universally applicable statements about god. Valid information.
No, we don't. We really don't. If we did have that, it wouldn't be "god."

Personal, um, experiences are useless as long as they cannot be confirmed. I'm personally convinced that there is a god. Because I've had my own experiences. But that's not usable as general info on the issue. savvy?
Personal experiences are far from useless --we have them everyday; in fact every moment of every day; in fact they define our very existence, so I'd hardly call them "useless" in any sense.

If you believe in god, why is it you don't understand this?

No, we don't. We really don't. If we did have that, it wouldn't be "god."


Personal experiences are far from useless --we have them everyday; in fact every moment of every day; in fact they define our very existence, so I'd hardly call them "useless" in any sense.

If you believe in god, why is it you don't understand this?

No; your personal experiences define your very existence; my personal experiences define my very existence.
My personal experiences do not inspire confidence in the idea of a moralistic God.
And yet I cannot use that as evidence in a debate; not only because other people would ignore it or dismiss it out of hand, but also because I feel that my own experiences cannot be held as evidence for such things.
I certainly would not hold a personal experience as proof of God; for all I know, the person (even if it were me) may be lying about it.
And I challenge you to prove to me that universally applicable statements cannot be made about God and still keep Him as God.

Also, at Kormanthor: well? Are you going to reply to me?

Ilaer

No; your personal experiences define your very existence; my personal experiences define my very existence.
My personal experiences do not inspire confidence in the idea of a moralistic God.
And yet I cannot use that as evidence in a debate; not only because other people would ignore it or dismiss it out of hand, but also because I feel that my own experiences cannot be held as evidence for such things.
I certainly would not hold a personal experience as proof of God; for all I know, the person (even if it were me) may be lying about it.
And I challenge you to prove to me that universally applicable statements cannot be made about God and still keep Him as God.

Also, at Kormanthor: well? Are you going to reply to me?

Ilaer

Can I quote myself as siding with you on the issue of universally applicable statements in regards to God and Free Will?

No, we don't. We really don't.Yes, we do. We really do.

If we did have that, it wouldn't be "god."WTF?


Personal experiences are far from useless --we have them everyday; in fact every moment of every day; in fact they define our very existence, so I'd hardly call them "useless" in any sense.
If you believe in god, why is it you don't understand this?Personal experiences have no value as a source of information if they are not confirmed by other sources. Especially when we are dealing with "experiences" with "god", which are always completely depending on the respective person's arbitrary beliefs.

Can I quote myself as siding with you on the issue of universally applicable statements in regards to God and Free Will?

Sure. Join the club; we've got jackets.

Also, I've just realised: isn't stating that there cannot be a universally applicable statement pertaining to God in fact making a universally applicable statement pertaining to God?

Ilaer

Sure. Join the club; we've got jackets.

Also, I've just realised: isn't stating that there cannot be a universally applicable statement pertaining to God in fact making a universally applicable statement pertaining to God?

Ilaer

Not necessarily. It can imply it without making such a statement.

And here's my evidence for that statement. Quoted from me.

Earlier . . . (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12521448&postcount=299)

And I challenge you to prove to me that universally applicable statements cannot be made about God and still keep Him as God.

What is God?

Any answer you give to that question would be a "universally applicable statement," and it would also be false. The only honest answer is the agnostic's, and it is personal, not universal: I don't know.

With or without god, there's no true free-will anyway. So the point is rather moot, right?

Think about it: For every effect there's a cause, for every action there's an action. If this is the case, and experience and history has supported this, very little is left to free-will, if any at all.

Now, assuming God exists, and so does free-will, so what? It never says for God to be omnipotent he needs to control every minutae. He just controls what he wants to control. If he HAD to control everything that in itself would be a constraint upon his omnipotence. So, he allows human free-will because it amuses him and because he can.

Enter the argument of evil (which has been going on as long as there have been philosophers). God allowing freewill and through freewill, sin and horribleness, is once again, not a discredit to god's "perfection", and in this particular case, moral perfection. God merely created the greatest of all possible universes. Of all the possibilities, or so the argument goes (Leibniz), this is the best one. Sin and horribleness were needed for some greater good.

Okay, not caught up. But has this been asked, I know the choice my parents made about getting married. Does that negate free will? The point being if the event has already happened is it an issue of free will?

The importance of this is in the assumptions that this argument rests on. The OP rests on a linear timeline where everything and everyone are at the same point in the timeline. The options are endless and this sits on one option.

Free Will FTW.

I don't think that we as living humans can determine and/or prove that we have or don't have free will - simply because we don't understand how time works, and how God works with time and us.

Free will.....this is a concept I've always had a hard time associating with an omniscient being, and even without I'm not sure I entirely believe in it.

Here goes.

Begin with the assumption that God is omnipresent, omniscient, and transcendent. So no matter what time we believe it to be, everything occurs at the same time for God. He knows the outcome of every probability because each cause is occurring simultaneously with its effect. In essence, he knows what we are going to do before we do, because he has already seen/will see/is seeing it.

Since we are not aware of the choices that lie in our paths to come, we will follow a straight line in God's eye, because he knows what we will choose to do. In this case, it can be argued that our fates, whether we will ultimately end up in Heaven or Hell, are predetermined, because we are already there, at least from God's point of view.

Now assuming that God is omnibenevolent, he wants us to be happy and with him in the afterlife, i.e. he wants us to be in Heaven as opposed to Hell, so he actually affects our decisions without direct intervention, considering that he is transcendent if he directly intervenes, he will cease to be transcendent and therefore omnipresent, and therefore not God. Since God must be God, he must not intervene directly.

Since God cannot interact with his Universe, he cannot give personal communication with any of his creations, and thus not give them proof of his existence, so his believers must have faith that this is the case, that they might be in Heaven with him.

Should God decide to stop being transcendent, in order to interact with the Universe, he must no longer be considered omniscient and omnipresent, and therefore if this occurs, our choices are no longer pointing in a straight line to God, because he can give proof of his existence, and thus change our final destination. If God is no longer omniscient and omnipresent, then the assumptions first made no longer hold, and we can become aware of the choices that we might have to make somewhere down the line and create a divergence from our original predestination, meaning we can change our final destination. In other words, should God decide to stop being transcendent, and therefore omniscient and omnipresent, all bets are off on what can happen.

In order to change the outcome of any particular choice, we must be aware of the choices we are making, and the choices that those choices will lead to. In other words, we have to know the consequences of our actions before we actually take action in order to actually change any outcome.

So, in my estimation, in order for there to be Free Will, we must have the qualities of the only person to truly have it, God. In being transcendent, omniscient and omnipresent, we can choose to stop being so to change the course of our lives by knowing what the end result of a particular choice will be, and to change our decision, but we must be aware of the end result in the first place before we can actually choose to change it.

Ouch. :headbang:

I think you have it backwards. I think only God cannot have free will, since God already knows the outcome of his actions. Free will requires that one be limited by time, since is a time-based action that is part of cause and effect.

I came up with this the other day whilst in France on a school trip; it's an argument against God in the classical sense of Him/Her being both free from sin and omniscient.
If you can see any flaws then be brutal and tell me; I'm an agnostic so it won't make much difference.
I just enjoy philosophy.

Straight from my notepad:
If God allows free will then whilst He/She may know all possible futures He/She does not know which will occur; in this case He/She is not omniscient.
If, however, He/She allows only the illusion of free will, then this would imply that either there is a power greater than God which has determined the course of the Universe (thus showing that God is not the greatest power) or that God Him/Herself controls life and action; this would mean, however, that God was the cause of sin and thus sinful Himself/Herself.

What do you think?
I don't want a religious fight/war; just a philosophical/theological discussion.

Ilaer

That is complicated and stupid and would rather stop thinking about it. There, now I feel better.