Religion and Ethics Forum
Religion and Ethics Discussion => Christian Topic => Topic started by: Sassy on September 11, 2015, 11:09:30 AM
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice. Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice. Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
Though I do believe we have free will, I think you are wrong in your sweeping overstatement in your first line.
-
I not sure why you are persisting with trying to prove the existence of free will. As a Christian, isn't the choice between 'self will', which is driven by the past and future considerations and therefore not free, and obeying God's Will in the present, which appears to be even less free.
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
No.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Ummh .. . right ....
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice.
Do you want to rewrite that?
Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
In your opinion.
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice. Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
Go to Boots the chemist an get one of their seven day pill boxes Sass, it so easy to forget and you can check to see if you have forgotten or not, if they're still there you've forgotton them, if they've gone you should be OK. Well you should be OK.
ippy
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice. Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
Another giggle contributed by Sass! ;D
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice. Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
Though I do believe we have free will, I think you are wrong in your sweeping overstatement in your first line.
I believe it is neither 'sweeping' nor is it 'wrong'. Unless of course you can prove they are not confusing lack of self-control with free will.
After all they are claiming freewill does not exist... Are you claiming self-control does not exist.
-
I not sure why you are persisting with trying to prove the existence of free will.
Free will is a fact. Not trying to prove what already is a fact.
As a Christian, isn't the choice between 'self will',
Is 'self-will' controlled by free will or 'self-control'.
which is driven by the past and future considerations
What is driven by past and future considerations.. You mean past and future choices. But how could you know future considerations or choices. Stop repeating things you have not thought out.
Whatever happens in your past does not control your present choices. For whatever happens in your past you still have self-control and you still have the ability to choose whatever way you will.
So I am not sure you are thinking correctly and I believe to inherit other peoples way of thinking be it 'suggestive' or any other way is not an ideal way to go.
and therefore not free, and obeying God's Will in the present, which appears to be even less free.
Again... you have no argument just a jumbled mess which started when you deliberately tried to introduce something NOT from yourself and NOT reasoned out by yourself.
Free will is the ability to choose and your ability is your own. What you allow to affect your decisions is a choice made by yourself.
A person can punch you in the nose. Totally unprovoked and without warning. But ultimately you will make the decision of how to react to that punch using your own free will and self-control.
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
No.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Ummh .. . right ....
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice.
Do you want to rewrite that?
Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
In your opinion.
No evidence to refute what I say and even less ability to make a reasoned reply.
Your choice.... :) Using your own free will and lack of ability,,,
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice. Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
Go to Boots the chemist an get one of their seven day pill boxes Sass, it so easy to forget and you can check to see if you have forgotten or not, if they're still there you've forgotton them, if they've gone you should be OK. Well you should be OK.
ippy
Well your reply had nothing to do with a sense of humour.
It had nothing to do with any sensible reasoning...
Just your freewill to post and show everyone how nothing you offer has any value to the thread or the discussion. Well done... Ippy.
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice. Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
Another giggle contributed by Sass! ;D
Floo,
Your post is-
Ignorance is BLISS in action ::)
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice. Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
Another giggle contributed by Sass! ;D
Floo,
Your post is-
Ignorance is BLISS in action ::)
And you have superior knowledge do you Sass? Funny not many Christians on this forum see it your way, do they! ;D ;D ;D
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice. Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
Go to Boots the chemist an get one of their seven day pill boxes Sass, it so easy to forget and you can check to see if you have forgotten or not, if they're still there you've forgotton them, if they've gone you should be OK. Well you should be OK.
ippy
Well your reply had nothing to do with a sense of humour.
It had nothing to do with any sensible reasoning...
Just your freewill to post and show everyone how nothing you offer has any value to the thread or the discussion. Well done... Ippy.
It is important to keep up with anything that might keep you on the straight and narrow Sass, I was only trying to help.
ippy
-
Sass
Is 'self-will' controlled by free will or 'self-control'
It varies depending upon how strongly self willed the individual is as to whether she can e.g. suppress her desires for self righteousness, self importance, self centeredness, self absorption.
What is driven by past and future considerations.. You mean past and future choices. But how could you know future considerations or choices. Stop repeating things you have not thought out. Whatever happens in your past does not control your present choices. For whatever happens in your past you still have self-control and you still have the ability to choose whatever way you will.
So I am not sure you are thinking correctly and I believe to inherit other peoples way of thinking be it 'suggestive' or any other way is not an ideal way to go.
What I am saying is that 'self will' is driven by the past e.g. one's nature and nurture and by consideration of the future e.g. the desire to repeat whatever enhances the ego driven self will. A religiously egotistical individual, for instance, is likely to be driven by their particular religious upbringing, say Christian, and will support it by frequently quoting from their scriptures and not from Hindu scriptures. They become prejudiced and dogmatic and have little control over their self expression and to use your words addressed to me 'keep repeating things they have not thought out', just like a parrot.
Again... you have no argument just a jumbled mess which started when you deliberately tried to introduce something NOT from yourself and NOT reasoned out by yourself.
Are you sure that it isn't you who is in a jumbled mess? After all, I have only written two sentences and one of those is a question, not an argument.
Free will is the ability to choose and your ability is your own. What you allow to affect your decisions is a choice made by yourself.
I would say that free choice is the ability to choose freely and 'will' is the intension to act or not act upon that choice. The question is how free is the choice?
A person can punch you in the nose. Totally unprovoked and without warning. But ultimately you will make the decision of how to react to that punch using your own free will and self-control
Not necessarily, the reaction for many is one of fight, flight or freeze, which is shared by the animal world and such an action is unlikely to be a choice but an inbuilt survival reaction. Do you think the refugees from Syria are choosing to leave or are driven to leave?
You haven't commented upon 'obeying God's Will'. If you are driven or live by the Will of your God, is your will free then?
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
No.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Ummh .. . right ....
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice.
Do you want to rewrite that?
Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
In your opinion.
No evidence to refute what I say and even less ability to make a reasoned reply.
You keep on thinking that Sassy if it makes you feel better and clever. Yet to see any evidence to back-up what you say or any reasoned replies from you though - only stating things as FACT. Go on - give it a go, see if you can manage it.
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice. Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
Though I do believe we have free will, I think you are wrong in your sweeping overstatement in your first line.
I believe it is neither 'sweeping' nor is it 'wrong'. Unless of course you can prove they are not confusing lack of self-control with free will.
After all they are claiming freewill does not exist... Are you claiming self-control does not exist.
No, I don't need to do anything of the sort. There are three things you stated in your first statement, all of which need to be true for you to be correct.
1) That the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will. Some do, some don't. I don't think Leonard, for example, refuses the idea of free will.
2) That they confuse it with lack of self-control. I've not seen this to be the case. Maybe I missed it though.
3) That the 1) is true because of 2) and I don't see that even if 1) and 2) are correct that 1) is correct because 2) is correct.
-
Does Sassy go along with the Biblical idea that those not born again are 'slaves to sin' I wonder?
-
Does Sassy go along with the Biblical idea that those not born again are 'slaves to sin' I wonder?
What on earth does 'slaves to sin' mean? It seems like another meaningless cliché. ::)
-
Just want to say I'm loving ekim's reply above. :)
-
Does Sassy go along with the Biblical idea that those not born again are 'slaves to sin' I wonder?
What on earth does 'slaves to sin' mean? It seems like another meaningless cliché. ::)
I thought you read your bible each day, floo.
-
A good thread! I understand what Sassy means in her op but feel the post quoted below is more in line with my thinking.
I've never considered free will to mean lack of self control, just about making choices which can be very difficult and involve a fair degree of self control.
I not sure why you are persisting with trying to prove the existence of free will. As a Christian, isn't the choice between 'self will', which is driven by the past and future considerations and therefore not free, and obeying God's Will in the present, which appears to be even less free.
-
Does Sassy go along with the Biblical idea that those not born again are 'slaves to sin' I wonder?
What on earth does 'slaves to sin' mean? It seems like another meaningless cliché. ::)
I thought you read your bible each day, floo.
Quite.
-
Being a "slave to sin" means reliving your wrongdoings with relish and repeating them at every opportunity. A bit like addiction, sad because anyone who is slave to anything is not really happy, they get a brief high and then it's downhill all the way.
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice. Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
Another giggle contributed by Sass! ;D
Floo,
Your post is-
Ignorance is BLISS in action ::)
And you have superior knowledge do you Sass? Funny not many Christians on this forum see it your way, do they! ;D ;D ;D
Nothing superior about the truth. And as it is Gods truth then you are not in a position to judge who is right...are you.
-
Ekim,
Will have to get back to you on this...Not in a good place right now to give it due consideration it deserves...
Sassy.
Sass
Is 'self-will' controlled by free will or 'self-control'
It varies depending upon how strongly self willed the individual is as to whether she can e.g. suppress her desires for self righteousness, self importance, self centeredness, self absorption.
What is driven by past and future considerations.. You mean past and future choices. But how could you know future considerations or choices. Stop repeating things you have not thought out. Whatever happens in your past does not control your present choices. For whatever happens in your past you still have self-control and you still have the ability to choose whatever way you will.
So I am not sure you are thinking correctly and I believe to inherit other peoples way of thinking be it 'suggestive' or any other way is not an ideal way to go.
What I am saying is that 'self will' is driven by the past e.g. one's nature and nurture and by consideration of the future e.g. the desire to repeat whatever enhances the ego driven self will. A religiously egotistical individual, for instance, is likely to be driven by their particular religious upbringing, say Christian, and will support it by frequently quoting from their scriptures and not from Hindu scriptures. They become prejudiced and dogmatic and have little control over their self expression and to use your words addressed to me 'keep repeating things they have not thought out', just like a parrot.
Again... you have no argument just a jumbled mess which started when you deliberately tried to introduce something NOT from yourself and NOT reasoned out by yourself.
Are you sure that it isn't you who is in a jumbled mess? After all, I have only written two sentences and one of those is a question, not an argument.
Free will is the ability to choose and your ability is your own. What you allow to affect your decisions is a choice made by yourself.
I would say that free choice is the ability to choose freely and 'will' is the intension to act or not act upon that choice. The question is how free is the choice?
A person can punch you in the nose. Totally unprovoked and without warning. But ultimately you will make the decision of how to react to that punch using your own free will and self-control
Not necessarily, the reaction for many is one of fight, flight or freeze, which is shared by the animal world and such an action is unlikely to be a choice but an inbuilt survival reaction. Do you think the refugees from Syria are choosing to leave or are driven to leave?
You haven't commented upon 'obeying God's Will'. If you are driven or live by the Will of your God, is your will free then?
-
Does Sassy go along with the Biblical idea that those not born again are 'slaves to sin' I wonder?
What on earth does 'slaves to sin' mean? It seems like another meaningless cliché. ::)
I thought you read your bible each day, floo.
Quite.
Just because I read that flipping book doesn't mean I agree with much of it, or everything that Jesus spouted!
-
The reason the unbeliever in God refuses the idea of free will is because they confuse with it lack of self-control.
Many people deny the idea of free will, Sass, believer and unbeliever, not because of their position on possible gods, but because there isn't any evidence for free will, and what we do know of how the universe operates doesn't leave a mechanism for anything to be free which constitutes will.
The way you control yourself is nothing to do with free will. It is a choice.
I agree that it's nothing to do with free will, because I see no point in claiming free will. How can it be a choice if there is no free will - without free will (or, if it's not related to free will) - then it can't be a choice.
Because you cannot control your bodily appetites in whatever feel it is still about choice. Freewill is still a reality and self-control still your decision.
This makes no sense at all, I'm afraid, I can't make out what you mean by this.
I know that it's been repeatedly pointed out to you why free will makes no sense, yet you keep making the assertion. If you have no basis for that contention, why are you not revising your understanding of the world, there are plenty of believers who accept the reality that free will is an illusion.
O.
-
If free will is an illusion then it has to follow that God created people to be 'fallen sinners'. Difficult one for many believers I'd say.
-
If free will is an illusion then it has to follow that God created people to be 'fallen sinners'. Difficult one for many believers I'd say.
Or not in some cases. While there is no one on these boards who declares as an outright predestinationalist, quite a few posts approach that.
-
If free will is an illusion then it has to follow that God created people to be 'fallen sinners'. Difficult one for many believers I'd say.
Or not in some cases. While there is no one on these boards who declares as an outright predestinationalist, quite a few posts approach that.
Indeed. 'God knew Eve would bite the apple.'
-
So the snake said to Eve 'g'wan, g'wan, g'wan, eat the apple, g'wan'. And Eve said 'Slither off, you talking serpent snakey thing. ' God saw this and thought 'Bugger that, I had such great plans, the Noah thing with the rainbow as a twee fig leaf for drowning nearly everyone, the Job thing with me old mucker, Satan, and most of all the bit where I sacrifice me to me. This free will thing was a mistake'
-
What would there be to teach the kiddies in Sunday School?
'God drowned all the naughty people but hey, let's go and make some animal masks!'
-
If free will is an illusion then it has to follow that God created people to be 'fallen sinners'. Difficult one for many believers I'd say.
Or not in some cases. While there is no one on these boards who declares as an outright predestinationalist, quite a few posts approach that.
Indeed. 'God knew Eve would bite the apple.'
That would be foreknowledge.
-
What would there be to teach the kiddies in Sunday School?
'God drowned all the naughty people but hey, let's go and make some animal masks!'
Indeed. Totally inappropriate, I would say.
-
What would there be to teach the kiddies in Sunday School?
'God drowned all the naughty people but hey, let's go and make some animal masks!'
Indeed. Totally inappropriate, I would say.
What is totally inappropriate?
-
If free will is an illusion then it has to follow that God created people to be 'fallen sinners'. Difficult one for many believers I'd say.
Or not in some cases. While there is no one on these boards who declares as an outright predestinationalist, quite a few posts approach that.
Indeed. 'God knew Eve would bite the apple.'
That would be foreknowledge.
Not really, it's only foreknowledge if you're limited to the constant progression of time. If you exist outside of the universe - and therefore outside of the flow of time - it's no more 'foreknowledge' than I have foreknowledge for knowing where the other side of the table is. Time is a dimension; our sense and our understanding are limited by the way in which we travel through it, but the limitation is ours, not the dimension's.
O.
-
If free will is an illusion then it has to follow that God created people to be 'fallen sinners'. Difficult one for many believers I'd say.
Or not in some cases. While there is no one on these boards who declares as an outright predestinationalist, quite a few posts approach that.
Indeed. 'God knew Eve would bite the apple.'
That would be foreknowledge.
So it wasn't predestined for her to bite?
-
What would there be to teach the kiddies in Sunday School?
'God drowned all the naughty people but hey, let's go and make some animal masks!'
Indeed. Totally inappropriate, I would say.
What is totally inappropriate?
Belittling what happened.
-
If free will is an illusion then it has to follow that God created people to be 'fallen sinners'. Difficult one for many believers I'd say.
Or not in some cases. While there is no one on these boards who declares as an outright predestinationalist, quite a few posts approach that.
Indeed. 'God knew Eve would bite the apple.'
That would be foreknowledge.
Not really, it's only foreknowledge if you're limited to the constant progression of time. If you exist outside of the universe - and therefore outside of the flow of time - it's no more 'foreknowledge' than I have foreknowledge for knowing where the other side of the table is. Time is a dimension; our sense and our understanding are limited by the way in which we travel through it, but the limitation is ours, not the dimension's.
O.
OK with that. My point was only that knowing something is going to happen does not thereby mean you have caused it.
-
If free will is an illusion then it has to follow that God created people to be 'fallen sinners'. Difficult one for many believers I'd say.
Or not in some cases. While there is no one on these boards who declares as an outright predestinationalist, quite a few posts approach that.
Indeed. 'God knew Eve would bite the apple.'
That would be foreknowledge.
So it wasn't predestined for her to bite?
What do you mean by predestined? That she had no choice?
-
What would there be to teach the kiddies in Sunday School?
'God drowned all the naughty people but hey, let's go and make some animal masks!'
Indeed. Totally inappropriate, I would say.
What is totally inappropriate?
Belittling what happened.
You mean belittling the seriousness of an evil deity, who must be a complete psycho to drown all but a few humans and animals, because it was having a temper tantrum?
-
2Corrie: "Does Sassy go along with the Biblical idea that those not born again are 'slaves to sin' I wonder?"
Quite frankly I think what Sassy believes in that respect is her business.
If you want to know what I believe, or think, it is my opinion that many of us are or have been 'enslaved to sin' for a period. Just because we are believers it doesn't follow that we will never develop a bad/dangerous habit. Surely we all know we do wrong.
-
Not really, it's only foreknowledge if you're limited to the constant progression of time. If you exist outside of the universe - and therefore outside of the flow of time - it's no more 'foreknowledge' than I have foreknowledge for knowing where the other side of the table is. Time is a dimension; our sense and our understanding are limited by the way in which we travel through it, but the limitation is ours, not the dimension's.
O.
OK with that. My point was only that knowing something is going to happen does not thereby mean you have caused it.
But you believe that god did ultimately cause it, right? I mean Eve, the apple (or fruit/whatever) and the universe they inhabit - none of those would exist without god? So it seems you're in a position where you believe god knows exactly how his creation is going to pan out from start to finish and there's no deviation from that knowledge.
-
If free will is an illusion then it has to follow that God created people to be 'fallen sinners'. Difficult one for many believers I'd say.
Or not in some cases. While there is no one on these boards who declares as an outright predestinationalist, quite a few posts approach that.
Indeed. 'God knew Eve would bite the apple.'
That would be foreknowledge.
Not really, it's only foreknowledge if you're limited to the constant progression of time. If you exist outside of the universe - and therefore outside of the flow of time - it's no more 'foreknowledge' than I have foreknowledge for knowing where the other side of the table is. Time is a dimension; our sense and our understanding are limited by the way in which we travel through it, but the limitation is ours, not the dimension's.
O.
OK with that. My point was only that knowing something is going to happen does not thereby mean you have caused it.
Again, for us with limited capacity, no it doesn't. For God, though, outside of time and the creator of everything at one stroke - God does not 'set the world in motion' because to God there is no motion, it's all one piece. God creates the entirety of history, so what to us is foreknowledge is just part of God's complete knowledge of his creation at the moment he makes it.
O.
-
Not really, it's only foreknowledge if you're limited to the constant progression of time. If you exist outside of the universe - and therefore outside of the flow of time - it's no more 'foreknowledge' than I have foreknowledge for knowing where the other side of the table is. Time is a dimension; our sense and our understanding are limited by the way in which we travel through it, but the limitation is ours, not the dimension's.
O.
OK with that. My point was only that knowing something is going to happen does not thereby mean you have caused it.
But you believe that god did ultimately cause it, right? I mean Eve, the apple (or fruit/whatever) and the universe they inhabit - none of those would exist without god? So it seems you're in a position where you believe god knows exactly how his creation is going to pan out from start to finish and there's no deviation from that knowledge.
And of course, if God must act according to its nature, then there is only one possible universe. It has no choice therefore we cannot have free will.
-
If free will is an illusion then it has to follow that God created people to be 'fallen sinners'. Difficult one for many believers I'd say.
The fall was not a mistake, the redemption was fore-ordained, not 'plan b'.
-
If free will is an illusion then it has to follow that God created people to be 'fallen sinners'. Difficult one for many believers I'd say.
The fall was not a mistake, the redemption was fore-ordained, not 'plan b'.
What a so and so your version of the deity is! ::)
-
What would there be to teach the kiddies in Sunday School?
'God drowned all the naughty people but hey, let's go and make some animal masks!'
Indeed. Totally inappropriate, I would say.
What is totally inappropriate?
Belittling what happened.
You mean belittling the seriousness of an evil deity, who must be a complete psycho to drown all but a few humans and animals, because it was having a temper tantrum?
No, I don't. One reason for not meaning that is because that was not happened. Grow up, floo.
-
Not really, it's only foreknowledge if you're limited to the constant progression of time. If you exist outside of the universe - and therefore outside of the flow of time - it's no more 'foreknowledge' than I have foreknowledge for knowing where the other side of the table is. Time is a dimension; our sense and our understanding are limited by the way in which we travel through it, but the limitation is ours, not the dimension's.
O.
OK with that. My point was only that knowing something is going to happen does not thereby mean you have caused it.
But you believe that god did ultimately cause it, right? I mean Eve, the apple (or fruit/whatever) and the universe they inhabit - none of those would exist without god? So it seems you're in a position where you believe god knows exactly how his creation is going to pan out from start to finish and there's no deviation from that knowledge.
Yes-ish. Yes, nothing which has happened, happens or will happen would be the case if God had not created the universe as he did, including the bad stuff. Him being God, he must have good reasons for doing it that way.
-
If free will is an illusion then it has to follow that God created people to be 'fallen sinners'. Difficult one for many believers I'd say.
Or not in some cases. While there is no one on these boards who declares as an outright predestinationalist, quite a few posts approach that.
Indeed. 'God knew Eve would bite the apple.'
That would be foreknowledge.
Not really, it's only foreknowledge if you're limited to the constant progression of time. If you exist outside of the universe - and therefore outside of the flow of time - it's no more 'foreknowledge' than I have foreknowledge for knowing where the other side of the table is. Time is a dimension; our sense and our understanding are limited by the way in which we travel through it, but the limitation is ours, not the dimension's.
O.
OK with that. My point was only that knowing something is going to happen does not thereby mean you have caused it.
Again, for us with limited capacity, no it doesn't. For God, though, outside of time and the creator of everything at one stroke - God does not 'set the world in motion' because to God there is no motion, it's all one piece. God creates the entirety of history, so what to us is foreknowledge is just part of God's complete knowledge of his creation at the moment he makes it.
O.
His complete knowledge including what would happen if he created the universe this way? Then yes. That, in itself, says nothing about whether God can create creatures which are free in their will though, but rather that he knew what they would freely choose (if indeed they are free).
-
Not really, it's only foreknowledge if you're limited to the constant progression of time. If you exist outside of the universe - and therefore outside of the flow of time - it's no more 'foreknowledge' than I have foreknowledge for knowing where the other side of the table is. Time is a dimension; our sense and our understanding are limited by the way in which we travel through it, but the limitation is ours, not the dimension's.
O.
OK with that. My point was only that knowing something is going to happen does not thereby mean you have caused it.
But you believe that god did ultimately cause it, right? I mean Eve, the apple (or fruit/whatever) and the universe they inhabit - none of those would exist without god? So it seems you're in a position where you believe god knows exactly how his creation is going to pan out from start to finish and there's no deviation from that knowledge.
And of course, if God must act according to its nature, then there is only one possible universe. It has no choice therefore we cannot have free will.
What do you mean by "free will"?
-
Yes-ish. Yes, nothing which has happened, happens or will happen would be the case if God had not created the universe as he did, including the bad stuff. Him being God, he must have good reasons for doing it that way.
And that's where the problem is. There are children who are born starving, struggle through a short, disease-riddled life and die.
What is there in everything imaginable that can justify that? Even if you disregard the notion of hell and eternal punishment, how many people that God already knows will go to heaven have to get to heaven to justify that existence? If the entirety of the universe's existence is known to God when it induces creation, what is the point of creation?
It's the lack of any even vaguely sensible answer to that which is the core of the problem of evil - it's not that God possibly created evil, it's that there's no rational justification for it.
O.
-
Not really, it's only foreknowledge if you're limited to the constant progression of time. If you exist outside of the universe - and therefore outside of the flow of time - it's no more 'foreknowledge' than I have foreknowledge for knowing where the other side of the table is. Time is a dimension; our sense and our understanding are limited by the way in which we travel through it, but the limitation is ours, not the dimension's.
O.
OK with that. My point was only that knowing something is going to happen does not thereby mean you have caused it.
But you believe that god did ultimately cause it, right? I mean Eve, the apple (or fruit/whatever) and the universe they inhabit - none of those would exist without god? So it seems you're in a position where you believe god knows exactly how his creation is going to pan out from start to finish and there's no deviation from that knowledge.
Yes-ish. Yes, nothing which has happened, happens or will happen would be the case if God had not created the universe as he did, including the bad stuff. Him being God, he must have good reasons for doing it that way.
I can't make sense of what bad means here if it is ultimately good.
-
His complete knowledge including what would happen if he created the universe this way? Then yes. That, in itself, says nothing about whether God can create creatures which are free in their will though, but rather that he knew what they would freely choose (if indeed they are free).
I'm not so sure. The very concept of free will is fundamentally flawed, I've been addressing that in the thread that Sassy set-up about free will and choice. Beyond that, though, how can we have free will if god creates the universe with all our decisions already made?
Time is a dimension, and god does not exist within it - god's complete knowledge of the universe is not constrained by the dimensions it creates, so it is aware of the entirety of existence that we only experience piecemeal as we move through that dimension.
A worm inside an apple can't see where the apple ends, but us holding it from the outside can see - so we inside the universe cannot see tomorrow, but God can. Time does not exist for God, so it does not create a universe and then set it loose, God creates an universe fully formed that we then experience from inside.
O.