NationStates Jolt Archive

If God gave us free will why does it matter if we believe in him? Isn't free will the choice to believe what you want?

EDIT - Do the time warp! Oh yeah!

*For the sake of argument, assume the existence of the Abrahamic God, wretched heathens.*

Some Christian philosopher (I forgot which one) once said that if God is infinitely good, infinite powerful, and has infinite foresight, that this must be the best possible universe to have beem created.

If this is accepted, doesn't that mean that God must have created this exact universe?

If, according to God's own attributes, he/she/it must always perform the objectively best option, doesn't that negate free will?

G-d always does the best option, because it can. That's like saying since we always chose the best option possible we have no free will.

*For the sake of argument, assume the existence of the Abrahamic God, wretched heathens.*

Some Christian philosopher (I forgot which one) once said that if God is infinitely good, infinite powerful, and has infinite foresight, that this must be the best possible universe to have beem created.

If this is accepted, doesn't that mean that God must have created this exact universe?

If, according to God's own attributes, he/she/it must always perform the objectively best option, doesn't that negate free will?

G-d always does the best option, because it can. That's like saying since we always chose the best option possible we have no free will.

Is "choosing" the only possible option really a free choice?

Is "choosing" the only possible option really a free choice?

if there is only one option you can't really speak about a choice...

Is "choosing" the only possible option really a free choice?

G-d can choose as it pleases, it can choose to transform soybars into steak. G-d just chooses the best option, because it wants to at the end.

There is no such thing as free will, if God created us and the universe we must bend to his will and his pre-decided course of action. There is no such thing as free will.

if God created us and the universe we must bend to his will and his pre-decided course of action.

why? my parents created me and i won't bend to their will and pre-decided course of action. Why do you also assume that he even has a pre-decided course of action for us? maybe he just made us for fun.

...there is no such thing as God. Or G-d either.

G-d can choose as it pleases, it can choose to transform soybars into steak. G-d just chooses the best option, because it wants to at the end.

Is omnibenevolence a trait which God possesses, or is it a classification given due to the actions "observed" so far?

Also, is this "G-d" business on par with "he whose name shall not be spoken" or something?

The philosopher was Leibniz. And I don't care.

G-d can choose as it pleases, it can choose to transform soybars into steak. G-d just chooses the best option, because it wants to at the end.

I don't believe God can magicly transform things, things have to change over time. thats why we have evolution, God is like a pool player on the balls going around knocking into each other are particles reaching a desired end.

I also think intelegent beings have free well but this is just what I've accepted as the best explanation right now

If, according to God's own attributes, he/she/it must always perform the objectively best option, doesn't that negate free will?

It's more about is and does rather then must. He does perform the objectively best option (assuming), that doesn't mean he must perform the objectively best option.

The trademarked version of God does, but the cheaper knocked off versions have a faulty version.This is not an allegory/metaphor/etc (no-one correct me on the technical term of what it might be either) it is simply a poor attempt at humour.

Actually, I do care, but I just tried to make a concrete argument about this and the end result reinforced my view that it is probably impossible to argue coherently about this subject. I will enjoy watching anybody who attempts to do so, however.

There is no such thing as free will, if God created us and the universe we must bend to his will and his pre-decided course of action. There is no such thing as free will.

This is assuming firstly that God can actually predict the future. Many people believe in a God that cannot predict the future.

This is assuming firstly that God can actually predict the future. Many people believe in a God that cannot predict the future.

How would that make sense with a transcendent, eternal God? I mean if he exists outside of space and time, then the very concept of past, present, and future seems somewhat meaningless.

Edit: Meaningless in the context of god's awareness of them, I mean.

How would that make sense with a transcendent, eternal God? I mean if he exists outside of space and time, then the very concept of past, present, and future seems somewhat meaningless.

Edit: Meaningless in the context of god's awareness of them, I mean.

That was my point. Many people don't actually believe in a transcendent God.

*For the sake of argument, assume the existence of the Abrahamic God, wretched heathens.*

Some Christian philosopher (I forgot which one) once said that if God is infinitely good, infinite powerful, and has infinite foresight, that this must be the best possible universe to have beem created.

If this is accepted, doesn't that mean that God must have created this exact universe?

If, according to God's own attributes, he/she/it must always perform the objectively best option, doesn't that negate free will?
Yes, it does, in the sense of selecting the options to be chosen to best meet an objective.

And of course objectives are frequently hierarchical: in order to achieve Objective A, you must first achieve Objectives X, Y, and Z.

However, I don't see that the listed attributes of God necessarily rule out free will in the selection of top-level objectives.

Suppose, for example, we have two pairs of objectives to consider: A/B, C/D. Each pair is mutually exclusive. Perhaps Objective B is objectively inferior to Objective A, but Objectives C and D are equally acceptable from God's perspective. In that case, God has no choice but to pursue Objective A over Objective B, but I don't see any limitation in his free will to choose either C or D.

That was my point. Many people don't actually believe in a transcendent God.

The fact that it is impossible to do this with any degree of logical rigour is pointed out far too infrequently (I jest of course, thanks to Richard Dawkins and his cohorts for repeating the bloody obvious and making cartloads of cash out of it), so I will.

That was my point. Many people don't actually believe in a transcendent God.

Ah, I see.

Though I had been under the (potentially wrong) impression that the Christian faith treated God as a transcendent being with an immanent aspect (Jesus).

Ah, I see.

Though I had been under the (potentially wrong) impression that the Christian faith treated God as a transcendent being with an immanent aspect (Jesus).

Nope. I have somewhere in an old exercise book what each main sect believes about whether God is transcendent or not, I might go find it if i'm really bored.

If God gave us free will why does it matter if we believe in him? Isn't free will the choice to believe what you want?
Of course we have the choice. However, simply because we have the choice doesn't mean it doesn't matter which choice we make.

For example, when your alarm clock rings in the morning, you have the free-will choice whether to get up and go to work, or to turn off the alarm and snuggle back into bed. Nobody forces you to make either of those choices; but the consequences of the latter may be far different from the consequences of the former.

Imagine that you found an integrated circuit chip, for example. Certain things about it you could tell just by looking--for example, that it had sixteen pins. Other things about it you could figure out--if you were smart enough--by careful trial-and-error analysis with expensive test equipment. But the quickest way to get everything out of the chip that was designed into it would be to use the number on the top of it to look up the data sheet and discover the purpose of the chip along with all its specifications and limitations.

If you choose to believe the chip just happened, and that it has no Designer, and that documentation other people might shove in your face about how it was intended to be used is so much poppycock, you're certainly free to do that, and use the chip only for what you can empirically discover about it without accidentally destroying it.

But that choice is going to lead you to results that are inferior to those achieved by people who read the documentation and perhaps even go talk to the Designer himself to ensure they employ it exactly as it was intended.

No, you don't have to believe in God. But yes, it's important that you do.

The way I see it, (1) you need to exist to have free will, and (2) god doesn't exist. Therefore his will isn't any freer than that of Auron, Gandalf, or Ganondorf.

Well, although I believe in god, I dont think he's omipotent, omniscient, or omnibevevolent, so this issue kind of passes me by.

*For the sake of argument, assume the existence of the Abrahamic God, wretched heathens.*

Some Christian philosopher (I forgot which one) once said that if God is infinitely good, infinite powerful, and has infinite foresight, that this must be the best possible universe to have beem created.

If this is accepted, doesn't that mean that God must have created this exact universe?

If, according to God's own attributes, he/she/it must always perform the objectively best option, doesn't that negate free will?

This is an easy one. Yes. And No, in fact. Because a false premise implies any conclusion. (Look it up if you don't believe me).

For example: (5 = 4) implies (I am Tony Blair). Why? Because:

5 = 4
=> 5 - 3 = 4 - 3
=> 2 = 1
And since Tony Blair and I are two people.
=> Tony Blair and I are one person.

Can God make a rock so big that he himself cannot lift it?

*For the sake of argument, assume the existence of the Abrahamic God, wretched heathens.*

Some Christian philosopher (I forgot which one) once said that if God is infinitely good, infinite powerful, and has infinite foresight, that this must be the best possible universe to have beem created.

If this is accepted, doesn't that mean that God must have created this exact universe?

If, according to God's own attributes, he/she/it must always perform the objectively best option, doesn't that negate free will?

Yes, it does negate free will, but your point is moot because God never would have had free will anyway, because God is a fictional character.

Is omnibenevolence a trait which God possesses, or is it a classification given due to the actions "observed" so far?

Also, is this "G-d" business on par with "he whose name shall not be spoken" or something?

G-d because of Jewish law thats how lord came into play as in Jesus my lord and savior. Anyway I think its on passover when they say God the omnipotent which i think means all powerful. But all in all God follows does what God wants but he only follows his rules which are set but made by him.

So :confused: :sniper: and lets just stop asking. As a matter of fact we were just discussing the end of the world and why do you car eso much what it says in Revelation or the Mayan calendar. The world ends when it ends.

If this is accepted, doesn't that mean that God must have created this exact universe?

No.

Just because someone prefers to do x over y doesn't mean that that person must do x over y.

This is an easy one. Yes. And No, in fact. Because a false premise implies any conclusion. (Look it up if you don't believe me).

For example: (5 = 4) implies (I am Tony Blair). Why? Because:

5 = 4
=> 5 - 3 = 4 - 3
=> 2 = 1
And since Tony Blair and I are two people.
=> Tony Blair and I are one person.

Wow... Math is Cool!

Wow... Math is Cool!

Just in case you're not being sarcastic, the particular branch of mathematics shown was logic.

Does God™ have free will?

No. Free will "creates" a "separation" from God. A thing cannot be separate from its being; God cannot be separate from God.

If God gave us free will why does it matter if we believe in him?

God didn't "give" us free will; rather, we have it as a consequence of being. Giod gives us being.

I was thinking about "belief" just this morning. "Just believe in him," is often put forth as a method of understanding God, being "saved" from existence without him, which is "death". When I was an atheist, and then agnostic, I understood the inadequacy of that put forth as a method. As a true agnostic, I now understand the essential method; so it's hard for me to say it doesn't matter. I would say, rather, that it matters but not as method, only as a result of method. Belief comes with understanding; understanding comes with information. The method is to open your heart to living metaphor.

Isn't free will the choice to believe what you want?

Free will is in the exericse of choice, or the execution of decision. When you have enough information, you realise the decision already made.

God doesn't have free will, he does exactly what I tell him too.

*For the sake of argument, assume the existence of the Abrahamic God, wretched heathens.*

Some Christian philosopher (I forgot which one) once said that if God is infinitely good, infinite powerful, and has infinite foresight, that this must be the best possible universe to have beem created.

If this is accepted, doesn't that mean that God must have created this exact universe?

If, according to God's own attributes, he/she/it must always perform the objectively best option, doesn't that negate free will?

it might negate the philosphers argument.

it might negate our view of this world as a shit hole.

it doesnt negate god's free will. god is so not bound by free will that he could send his son to save those who had died long before he got there.

i dont even find it interesting to discuss a limited god when we have defined him as unlimited. what if god were a DOG, would we all get saved by chasing rabbits?

...there is no such thing as God. Or G-d either.

The only rational thing that can be said, really.

God knows everything, has experienced everything. He knows what he’s going to do before he does it and knows what it feels like before he does it. He knows when you’ve been sleeping. He knows when you’re awake. He knows when you’ve been bad or good so be good for goodness sake.
The only thing he really gets off on is people adoring him (which he’s already experienced anyway) and the occasional Armageddon (which he knows he’ll win anyway).
I can’t imagine anything more boring than being God.

Nope. I have somewhere in an old exercise book what each main sect believes about whether God is transcendent or not, I might go find it if i'm really bored.

That would be awesome, though maybe for a new thread.

... those who divide people into two groups, and those who don't. But meanwhile ...

Modern philosophy asserts "uniformity of natural causes within a closed system." The system is closed, meaning there is nothing "outside" (i.e. no transcendent other i.e. no God) and we are not "free" - our actions are fully determined. However, this creates problems - how can we know that we reliably know anything about anything if we are just part of the system?

Post-modernism tries to escape from that by saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth - i.e. the whole debate is meaningless. Unfortunately, pomo is also unable even to support itself - after all, isn't the statement, "There is no such thing as absolute truth" one which claims absolute authority?

So if modernism and postmodernism don't work, what are we left with?

"Pre"-modernism works on the basis of "uniformity of natural causes within an open system." The reason for rejecting this, ultimately, wasn't because it had been tried and found wanting, but because of presuppositions - naturalists and humanists wanted to "close the system" to exclude the role of God, but didn't realise that they were closing the door to their own free will at the same time.

Of course, once the system is open, the possibility is there again that I have the free will that I perceive I have ("Can I be bothered to write a reply on this thread? Oh heck, why not?") - and the a priori assumption that there is no absolute other (God) which comes with naturalism/modernism is no longer required.

Is omnibenevolence a trait which God possesses, or is it a classification given due to the actions "observed" so far?What exactly are the actions "observed" so far?
God's properties are not assigned to him because of observation, but by the desires of a bunch of biblical authors. They wanted their own god, so they made up one right then and there. After all, doesn't it seem strange to you that nobody apparently knew (and least of all worshiped) this god in the way the bible suggests before the bible was written?

If God gave us free will why does it matter if we believe in him? Isn't free will the choice to believe what you want?

EDIT - Do the time warp! Oh yeah!

http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/geno/rofl.gifI don't believe in free will do it doesn't matter to me! http://smilies.vidahost.com/contrib/blackeye/lol.gif

I am an atheist™, so I cannot answer your question

... those who divide people into two groups, and those who don't. But meanwhile ...

Modern philosophy asserts "uniformity of natural causes within a closed system." The system is closed, meaning there is nothing "outside" (i.e. no transcendent other i.e. no God) and we are not "free" - our actions are fully determined. However, this creates problems - how can we know that we reliably know anything about anything if we are just part of the system?

Post-modernism tries to escape from that by saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth - i.e. the whole debate is meaningless. Unfortunately, pomo is also unable even to support itself - after all, isn't the statement, "There is no such thing as absolute truth" one which claims absolute authority?

So if modernism and postmodernism don't work, what are we left with?

"Pre"-modernism works on the basis of "uniformity of natural causes within an open system." The reason for rejecting this, ultimately, wasn't because it had been tried and found wanting, but because of presuppositions - naturalists and humanists wanted to "close the system" to exclude the role of God, but didn't realise that they were closing the door to their own free will at the same time.

Of course, once the system is open, the possibility is there again that I have the free will that I perceive I have ("Can I be bothered to write a reply on this thread? Oh heck, why not?") - and the a priori assumption that there is no absolute other (God) which comes with naturalism/modernism is no longer required.
Neat first post. Welcome to the forums.

I imagine so. He decided that he wanted to make people believe in him in order to go to his heaven.

Of course, all of the other Gods might have something to say about that little proclamation...I personally feel Gods are as powerful on Earth as the number of people who believe in them.

GBrooks: Why thank you. :)

in truth, we have no idea what god, or a god, has or doesn't have, is or isn't or anything else about it/them, other then a reasonable surmise of not intending us any particular harm.

claiming to is beyond anything i can perceive of as being the pale of sanity.

=^^=
.../\...

G-d is the prisoner of those who wrote the bible and of those who adhere to it.

... those who divide people into two groups, and those who don't. But meanwhile ...

Modern philosophy asserts "uniformity of natural causes within a closed system." The system is closed, meaning there is nothing "outside" (i.e. no transcendent other i.e. no God) and we are not "free" - our actions are fully determined. However, this creates problems - how can we know that we reliably know anything about anything if we are just part of the system?

Post-modernism tries to escape from that by saying that there is no such thing as absolute truth - i.e. the whole debate is meaningless. Unfortunately, pomo is also unable even to support itself - after all, isn't the statement, "There is no such thing as absolute truth" one which claims absolute authority?

So if modernism and postmodernism don't work, what are we left with?

"Pre"-modernism works on the basis of "uniformity of natural causes within an open system." The reason for rejecting this, ultimately, wasn't because it had been tried and found wanting, but because of presuppositions - naturalists and humanists wanted to "close the system" to exclude the role of God, but didn't realise that they were closing the door to their own free will at the same time.

Of course, once the system is open, the possibility is there again that I have the free will that I perceive I have ("Can I be bothered to write a reply on this thread? Oh heck, why not?") - and the a priori assumption that there is no absolute other (God) which comes with naturalism/modernism is no longer required.

I have to say, this was the most intelligent post on this thread so far, at least the one that most prompted a reply from me. Though it might have helped that I have just read a book on this topic (modernism and postmodernism).

Even so, I thought it was slight off the topic from the original post, which asks the question ''Does God have free will?''

What you have speculated on is how philosophy has treated the ''God'' subject in the last 100 years or so.

I think that it is an interesting question. For myself, I would respond by saying that God undoubtedly has a free will. Firstly and foremost because I believe that God is love, and love is not possible without the element of choice. Secondly, one cannot hold a serious respect for the Bible if one disregards the choice that God has made in calling humans into a relationship with him.

Thirdly, for those who don't believe in free will, I consider their world view rather dishonest, not to mention morbid and dreary. Much like life being some sort of computer program that simply must run its course. No real liberty, freedom, love, happiness, meaning, or anything else we humans have tended to hold precious and dear. For them, all these things are illusions, or worse, delusions. There is no enjoyment, no fun, no satisfaction, just a bunch of chemical equasions that will never know rest until it ends. Their only way around this is to live life as though it did have meaning and free will. Thus, they end up believing in the meaninglessness of life, but living as though there was. That is not living an illusion. That is living a delusion.

I believe the truth is far better. God has choice. And he made us to have choice, in his image, for the purpose of enjoying relationship with him.

For myself, I would respond by saying that God undoubtedly has a free will. Firstly and foremost because I believe that God is love, and love is not possible without the element of choice.
How so?

Well according to evangelicals and many other Christians, he doesn't. If you're Saved by Grace he's got to let you into heaven, no matter what horrible things you've done.

How so?


It's one of many ill-thought out talking points of Christians who've had the misfortune of possessing a brain capably capable of wondering why God would create evil. Pay it no heed.

two words.... Babel Fish

Anyone you comes into this topic saying God doesn't exist I would like to hear why he doesn't as there is no prooth that God does or doesn't exist as a metaphysical being (aka something you can't see).

God doesn't HAVE to let people into heaven, he chooses to out of love. He is a loving and fearful God, thats what it says for Christians anyway, whether that is the same for other religions I don't know.

Out of love those who go to God and repent will be allowed into heaven because the price of your sins has been paid - by Jesus (who is part of God). Jesus chose to die on the cross, he could have turned around and said no but he didn't.

Also God didn't create evil. Its a balance, with good comes evil.

If you look at the christian God it says many times that he does have free will, after all he killed an awful lot of people he didn't have to. He burnt down cities, created a large flood, did he have to? no.

Technically god operates on a plane of logic that is far beyond human understanding, and belief. So to define wether or not God has free will is impossible to determine as much as his/her existance. You'd have a better chance at finding the purpose of meaning before you define wether humans even have the mental capability to even comprehend the initial exsistance of a higher being let alone understanding the foundational persona of the divine creator of exsistance itself.

It's one of many ill-thought out talking points of Christians who've had the misfortune of possessing a brain capably capable of wondering why God would create evil. Pay it no heed.

Why would it be ill thought-out? Christians don't hold that God created evil, but that evil is simply always going to be an option whenever there is a choice.

If God created humans in his own image, with the ability to choose, it must mean that we can choose evil, IF we know about it. That was why in Genesis it describes the tree as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for by it came a choice between good and evil. Prior to this there was only a choice between good and good, I suppose.

As for the love question, I am referring to the true form of sacrificial love, of course, not the sexual attraction that is so frequently mistaken for love. For all I know, sexual attraction or infatuation (which can be a wonderful feeling) could well be attributed to a bunch of chemical equasions, not needing the element of choice.

If God created humans in his own image, with the ability to choose, it must mean that we can choose evil, IF we know about it. That was why in Genesis it describes the tree as the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for by it came a choice between good and evil. Prior to this there was only a choice between good and good, I suppose.
So choosing to eat the fruit was good?

As for the love question, I am referring to the true form of sacrificial love, of course, not the sexual attraction that is so frequently mistaken for love. For all I know, sexual attraction or infatuation (which can be a wonderful feeling) could well be attributed to a bunch of chemical equasions, not needing the element of choice.
Do you believe that love is not in place until after some 'choice' is made, then?