How does it interest God to give us free will? [Archive]

hypermegachi

05-30-2007, 07:53 PM

Here are some of the premises I will make:

a) The Christian God exists.
b) God is omnipotent and omniscient.
c) God exists outside of time (from b), so He has seen everything that has and will happen.
d) We humans do not have free will (because of b, c). However, we have the illusion of free will.

It's been stated that God gave us free will so we can freely choose to be with Him in the afterlife. He doesn't want His children to be mindless zombies.

Now the question is...given the premises are true (which I find are reasonable, but if you don't think so, please do explain your thoughts), why would God get any pleasure, happiness, whatever it is, by giving us this illusion of free will if He already knows what will happen?

For instance, He knew that the apple would be eaten. Why would he put it there so eventually we could be saved through Jesus Christ? Why does it interest God that we have free will?

NotReady

05-30-2007, 08:02 PM

[ QUOTE ]

d) We humans do not have free will (because of b, c). However, we have the illusion of free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've had a few rounds on this one. My contention is that foreknowledge doesn't prevent free will. It's the difference between inevitability and necessity.

If it's inevitable that Adam will sin, but not necessary, then it's easy to speculate on why God would allow it to occur, though I don't think anyone can be dogmatic. I usually fall back on the idea contained in Genesis, that God said after each act of creation that it was good. Most theologians say the overall good outweighs the bad. Hard for us finite humans to make that judgment, which is one reason God communicates to us.

Archon_Wing

05-30-2007, 08:08 PM

Perhaps God is sadistic and wants people to suffer for some reason? Have you ever had people give you a choice, but deep down they want you to make a certain choice? They will be unhappy or angry if you make the "wrong" choice. Someone asking you "Does this make me look fat?" comes in mind. It's possible that God is simply short-tempered, or extremely moody when people do not make the decisons that he wants them to. Or he might just be moody anyways and want to kill people when he's in a bad mood and save them when he feels better?

You must remember, even if God was sadistic, he would still refer to himself as loving and caring. Simply because he decides the definitions of those words and the obvious fact that most people simply don't view themselves as evil.

In other words, from what I've seen, God is pretty much an abusive girlfriend/boyfriend/spouse who deludes himself to believing that he is giving his free will to his victims but ultimately does not because he is acting for "their own good"

There's always the possibility that God has created many diffrent worlds or possibilities and he simply doesn't care about this one, so he leaves it to progress on its own with occasional intervention. He may just be curious simply like a child experimenting with something.

carlo

05-30-2007, 08:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some of the premises I will make:

a) The Christian God exists.
b) God is omnipotent and omniscient.
c) God exists outside of time (from b), so He has seen everything that has and will happen.
d) We humans do not have free will (because of b, c). However, we have the illusion of free will.

It's been stated that God gave us free will so we can freely choose to be with Him in the afterlife. He doesn't want His children to be mindless zombies.

Now the question is...given the premises are true (which I find are reasonable, but if you don't think so, please do explain your thoughts), why would God get any pleasure, happiness, whatever it is, by giving us this illusion of free will if He already knows what will happen?

For instance, He knew that the apple would be eaten. Why would he put it there so eventually we could be saved through Jesus Christ? Why does it interest God that we have free will?

[/ QUOTE ]

Trying not to answer the questions of "why". "omnipotence", "omniscience" or even that "outside of time stuff" the question of "free will' speaks for itself and actually becomes "physiological".

Consider at one point in cosmic time that you, purportedly as an individual, were ensconced in the "Bosom of the Godhead" whose experiences were this "Godhead" directly. You may have experienced the many variations of sympathy and antipathy in your "not free" world. As these experiences passed through you memory was non existant and you went on in this manner with no need of anything. No memory but a being dependent upon this "Bosom". All of our experiences and even our individuality were really that of the "Bosom" much like we were leaves on a multifaceted tree.

Now in the religious experience Man was separated from this "Bosom" and as it were excluded and "cast out". At first glance he was "free" but it was not a very pleasant sight. So we have the picture of "Adam and Eve". Cast out from the heavens but not fixed in physiology, soul, or spirit. The "sand" of Lucifer was thrown into Man's eyes and the result was our senses. Taste, sight,sound ,smell, balance,warmth, tone, etc. were now experienced in a different way via the medium of our senses. But our sensate being developed over"Time" through the senses which were not present prior to the "Fall". Humanity meets "another world", that of the "Earth".

But he is still, in a sense(no pun intended), dependent upon that which is given to him through his original being. The Luciferic strike sets up hindrances to him in his incarnations which are actually boons to freedom. But Man also receives his "Ego" or "I" The "I Am" which now "works the earth". This is the "Divine in Man" which is his Spiritual Being. Man overcomes(not a good word) the Luciferic hindrance and developes his physiology, soul and spirit and in doing so actually redeems himself and in the historical exegesis returns to that "Bosom of the Godhead" transformed into Free Spiritual Beings. It should be clear that this "Freedom" or "Free Will" is that which is EARNED and the end state of the Earth evolution is Mankind, Free, within the manifestation of LOVE. Earth is the "Planet of Love". Go figure, right? It should be clear that ech individual human is "free" or "unfree" relative to the point of his individual development. One may be born into one's nation, race, clan, family and at first glance appear to be 'unfree' but these incarnations are both an aid and hindrance to each individual's development. Only a multilife look at the human movement can see the clan of one's being as free movement of the individual.

The above leaves out all the "helpers" of Man , cosmic beings. who have always displayed concern for humanity and were able to sacrifice their beings for the recreation of Man. They have always been, and the greatest event of earthly evolution is when that Being known as the Christ died on the Cross and entered into Earthly evolution working within Mankind and became the "Spirit of the Earth".

Philo

05-30-2007, 08:54 PM

Butcho22

05-30-2007, 09:58 PM

Because he has a sick, sick sense of humor?

luckyme

05-30-2007, 10:29 PM

I enjoy these threads.
From the same poster, sometimes on the same day, we can read,
"our puny minds cannot comprehend what god is up to."
"god wants X"

luckyme

Piers

05-30-2007, 10:37 PM

Its your god, you can give him whatever intentions you wish.

NotReady

05-30-2007, 11:23 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I enjoy these threads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Big mystery.

our puny minds = I'm finite, He's omniscient.

god wants X"= He's told us many specifics in His word.

Yep, rotten ole irrational Christians. I'll never get it.

luckyme

05-30-2007, 11:38 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I enjoy these threads.

[/ QUOTE ]

Right. Big mystery.

our puny minds = I'm finite, He's omniscient.

god wants X"= He's told us many specifics in His word.

Yep, rotten ole irrational Christians. I'll never get it.

[/ QUOTE ]

I didn't say it was a mystery. It's not even a interesting puzzle compared to other psychological situations. It's just fun to watch, like when somebody on tha stand is going through the ".but, but, but...er, umhhh" phase.

Why does god do X?
hands shoot up "I know, I know, ..ask me".

Why does god do Y?
"oh, god works in mysterious ways."

well, ok, how do you know your answer to X is right, especially since it conflicts with other theists explanation .. it can't be obvious. nor should it be by the Y explanation.

Why did god give us free will? Is it an X or Y question? and how can a person be sure?

You're right. Lots of theists claim their positions aren't reached by 'rationality' but by revelation.

luckyme

JussiUt

05-31-2007, 05:19 AM

A lot of theologians admit that their positions can't be based on rationality but that they are based on revelation and belief. If NotReady consistently insists that he can base his positions on reason he's pretty much alone with that.

And if he says he can't base his positions on reason but he can defend them rationally, that's silly. It's like I claim "there is a mermaid living in my cellar" and then I try to come up with good rational reasons to defend that position but does it really makes sense if your whole premise and claim is not based on reason?

I know belief in 'cellar mermaids' is not common but has the fact that a belief is common ever been evidence that it's true? Witches, perhaps? What if I say I had a spiritual experience and that I felt the mermaid's presence in the cellar. You could interpret that as one subjective way of trying to understand God's revelations like PairTheBoard likes to put it. So is there really a difference between a belief in a 'cellar mermaid' and one version of God if we discount popularity (which also tells us that there are numerous interpretations of God, why can't my mermaid be one of them? Who decides which revelation is close enough to true God?)

Taraz

05-31-2007, 06:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
A lot of theologians admit that their positions can't be based on rationality but that they are based on revelation and belief. If NotReady consistently insists that he can base his positions on reason he's pretty much alone with that.

And if he says he can't base his positions on reason but he can defend them rationally, that's silly. It's like I claim "there is a mermaid living in my cellar" and then I try to come up with good rational reasons to defend that position but does it really makes sense if your whole premise and claim is not based on reason?

I know belief in 'cellar mermaids' is not common but has the fact that a belief is common ever been evidence that it's true? Witches, perhaps? What if I say I had a spiritual experience and that I felt the mermaid's presence in the cellar. You could interpret that as one subjective way of trying to understand God's revelations like PairTheBoard likes to put it. So is there really a difference between a belief in a 'cellar mermaid' and one version of God if we discount popularity (which also tells us that there are numerous interpretations of God, why can't my mermaid be one of them? Who decides which revelation is close enough to true God?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the rational and intelligent theist would respond that you're free to have your mermaid interpretation. But they would also say that since nobody shares your interpretation we shouldn't give it much credence. They would also probably say that majority rules, so if your views are unpopular, you better go out and try to change some people's minds.

NotReady

05-31-2007, 09:08 AM

[ QUOTE ]
So is there really a difference between a belief in a 'cellar mermaid'

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there really a difference between the tooth fairy and "it all popped up out of nothing for no reason"?

revots33

05-31-2007, 09:43 AM

[ QUOTE ]
For instance, He knew that the apple would be eaten.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe he didn't? Is it possible god is all-powerful but, in his desire for his creatures to have true free will, decided to somehow "block" his ability to see the future?

In other words, god knew that if he could see everything that will happen, his creatures would only have the illusion of free will. He wanted us to truly have free will, so he self-imposed this one limit on his powers.

Kind of a stretch but seems as good an explanation as any.

NotReady

05-31-2007, 10:19 AM

[ QUOTE ]

decided to somehow "block" his ability to see the future?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible says the crucifixion was foreknown by God so He also must have foreseen Adam's sin.

Even without that, there's no reason for God to limit His foreknowledge.

luckyme

05-31-2007, 10:23 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

decided to somehow "block" his ability to see the future?

[/ QUOTE ]

The Bible says the crucifixion was foreknown by God so He also must have foreseen Adam's sin.

Even without that, there's no reason for God to limit His foreknowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

sigh, another theist who thinks he understands gods reasoning methods.

luckyme

NotReady

05-31-2007, 10:26 AM

[ QUOTE ]

sigh, another theist who thinks he understands gods reasoning methods.

[/ QUOTE ]

The more you post the more irrational you appear.

revots33

05-31-2007, 10:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Even without that, there's no reason for God to limit His foreknowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough but there is a contradiction here. If god knew Adam would eat the apple there was really no point in his whole "don't eat from that tree" charade. And free will would in fact be an illusion for Adam in that case. So I'd think god either a)didn't really give us free will, b)does not really have knowledge of everything that will ever happen, or c)chose to limit his knowledge specifically where human free will was concerned. Is there another option I am missing?

luckyme

05-31-2007, 10:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

sigh, another theist who thinks he understands gods reasoning methods.

[/ QUOTE ]

The more you post the more irrational you appear.

[/ QUOTE ]

sorry, I thought you made a comment about gods reasoning on a specific topic and used it in an argument you were making.
my bad. withdrawn.

luckyme

pokerbobo

05-31-2007, 10:56 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

d) We humans do not have free will (because of b, c). However, we have the illusion of free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

We've had a few rounds on this one. My contention is that foreknowledge doesn't prevent free will. It's the difference between inevitability and necessity.

If it's inevitable that Adam will sin, but not necessary, then it's easy to speculate on why God would allow it to occur, though I don't think anyone can be dogmatic. I usually fall back on the idea contained in Genesis, that God said after each act of creation that it was good. Most theologians say the overall good outweighs the bad. Hard for us finite humans to make that judgment, which is one reason God communicates to us .

[/ QUOTE ]

When was the last transmission from the mother ship?

Phone Call?

Burning Bush?

Voice from the sky?

You may communicate "to god".....but not the other way around.

NotReady

05-31-2007, 10:57 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Is there another option I am missing?

[/ QUOTE ]

d) Inevitability != necessity.

JussiUt

05-31-2007, 11:14 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So is there really a difference between a belief in a 'cellar mermaid'

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there really a difference between the tooth fairy and "it all popped up out of nothing for no reason"?

[/ QUOTE ]

Don't ignore my whole post and try to negate it with a silly question back which really doesn't relate at all to what I was saying.

JussiUt

05-31-2007, 11:16 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of theologians admit that their positions can't be based on rationality but that they are based on revelation and belief. If NotReady consistently insists that he can base his positions on reason he's pretty much alone with that.

And if he says he can't base his positions on reason but he can defend them rationally, that's silly. It's like I claim "there is a mermaid living in my cellar" and then I try to come up with good rational reasons to defend that position but does it really makes sense if your whole premise and claim is not based on reason?

I know belief in 'cellar mermaids' is not common but has the fact that a belief is common ever been evidence that it's true? Witches, perhaps? What if I say I had a spiritual experience and that I felt the mermaid's presence in the cellar. You could interpret that as one subjective way of trying to understand God's revelations like PairTheBoard likes to put it. So is there really a difference between a belief in a 'cellar mermaid' and one version of God if we discount popularity (which also tells us that there are numerous interpretations of God, why can't my mermaid be one of them? Who decides which revelation is close enough to true God?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the rational and intelligent theist would respond that you're free to have your mermaid interpretation. But they would also say that since nobody shares your interpretation we shouldn't give it much credence. They would also probably say that majority rules, so if your views are unpopular, you better go out and try to change some people's minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's the popularity thing. If that's best what the intelligent theists got that's pretty bad.

NotReady

05-31-2007, 11:52 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Don't ignore my whole post and try to negate it with a silly question back which really doesn't relate at all to what I was saying.

[/ QUOTE ]

It would be irrational to think I was doing that.

NotReady

05-31-2007, 11:54 AM

[ QUOTE ]

It's like I claim "there is a mermaid living in my cellar"

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to compare mermaids to God and to do so is irrational.

Wubbie075

05-31-2007, 12:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

It's like I claim "there is a mermaid living in my cellar"

[/ QUOTE ]

There's no reason to compare mermaids to God and to do so is irrational.

[/ QUOTE ]

yawn

Phil153

05-31-2007, 12:52 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
So is there really a difference between a belief in a 'cellar mermaid'

[/ QUOTE ]

Is there really a difference between the tooth fairy and "it all popped up out of nothing for no reason"?

[/ QUOTE ]
Yes. A huge difference. One is a magical being with human like qualities that does a special service just for humans.

The other is proposing a process that is blind and indifferent. Something coming from nothing in a singularity is not at all strange in a world where time is fluid and space cannot be localized.

NotReady

05-31-2007, 12:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Yes. A huge difference.

[/ QUOTE ]

No. They're identical.

One is a magic being born of an irrational imagination.

The other is a magical process founded on absolute irrationality.

[ QUOTE ]

Something coming from nothing in a singularity is not at all strange in a world where time is fluid and space cannot be localized.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yeah, it happens all the time.

JussiUt

05-31-2007, 01:36 PM

Ok, I hoped NotReady would be different than most but in the end he's not at all. He's not able to discuss things when things get too uncomfortable or too precise for him. It's a shame but he's not really capable of having debates.

revots33

05-31-2007, 01:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, it happens all the time.

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't understand it = god must have done it. Worked for the plague, thunder, and eclipses also.

hypermegachi

05-31-2007, 01:53 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Its your god, you can give him whatever intentions you wish.

[/ QUOTE ]
i'm not religious.

hypermegachi

05-31-2007, 01:58 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Even without that, there's no reason for God to limit His foreknowledge.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough but there is a contradiction here. If god knew Adam would eat the apple there was really no point in his whole "don't eat from that tree" charade. And free will would in fact be an illusion for Adam in that case. So I'd think god either a)didn't really give us free will, b)does not really have knowledge of everything that will ever happen, or c)chose to limit his knowledge specifically where human free will was concerned. Is there another option I am missing?

[/ QUOTE ]
i am willing to grant that this is possible. if God is truly omnipotent and omnipresent, he is able contradict and still be "right."

"can God microwave a burrito so hot that He Himself cannot eat it???"

but then there would be no need of discussion, and i wouldn't want this thread to break down because of that.

Piers

05-31-2007, 02:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Its your god, you can give him whatever intentions you wish.

[/ QUOTE ]
i'm not religious.

[/ QUOTE ]

Fair enough, but

[ QUOTE ]
Here are some of the premises I will make:

a) The Christian God exists.
b) God is omnipotent and omniscient.
c) God exists outside of time (from b), so He has seen everything that has and will happen.
d) We humans do not have free will (because of b, c). However, we have the illusion of free will.

[/ QUOTE ]

Its your model of a god, doesn’t matter whether what you believe in.

To answer your question just add

[ QUOTE ]

e) God gave us the illusion of free will because ________

[/ QUOTE ]

Just fill in blank, or leave it undefined to create a god template.

NotReady

05-31-2007, 02:40 PM

[ QUOTE ]

a shame but he's not really capable of having debates.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's impossible to debate someone who's only response is"You're deluded" or "You're irrational".

Funny how that works.

NotReady

05-31-2007, 02:41 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I can't understand it = god must have done it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Science can't explain it = science will explain it later.

revots33

05-31-2007, 03:19 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Science can't explain it = science will explain it later.

[/ QUOTE ]

Well yes this is usually how it works.

I agree that some questions may always be unanswerable within the limits of our human brains. The beginning of the universe may be one of those questions. But "god must have done it" is a much less logical position than "I don't know."

NotReady

05-31-2007, 03:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]

. But "god must have done it" is a much less logical position than "I don't know."

[/ QUOTE ]

But "God must have done it" is a much more logical position than "chance did it" or "there is no reason".

pokerbobo

05-31-2007, 03:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

. But "god must have done it" is a much less logical position than "I don't know."

[/ QUOTE ]

But "God must have done it" is a much more logical position than "chance did it" or "there is no reason".

[/ QUOTE ]

/images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gifI don't think so /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif /images/graemlins/confused.gif...By the way, still waiting to hear when your last correspondence from god was....were you avoiding that question?

NotReady

05-31-2007, 03:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I don't think so

[/ QUOTE ]

I do.

[ QUOTE ]

By the way, still waiting to hear when your last correspondence from god was....were you avoiding that question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember anyone asking but the answer is yesterday when I read a letter from Him to me call Romans. It was also addressed to you and He wants to know why you keep ignoring His communications.

pokerbobo

05-31-2007, 04:30 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I don't think so

[/ QUOTE ]

I do.

[ QUOTE ]

By the way, still waiting to hear when your last correspondence from god was....were you avoiding that question?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't remember anyone asking but the answer is yesterday when I read a letter from Him to me call Romans. It was also addressed to you and He wants to know why you keep ignoring His communications.

[/ QUOTE ]

Here is the post i was referring to...

d) We humans do not have free will (because of b, c). However, we have the illusion of free will.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

We've had a few rounds on this one. My contention is that foreknowledge doesn't prevent free will. It's the difference between inevitability and necessity.

If it's inevitable that Adam will sin, but not necessary, then it's easy to speculate on why God would allow it to occur, though I don't think anyone can be dogmatic. I usually fall back on the idea contained in Genesis, that God said after each act of creation that it was good. Most theologians say the overall good outweighs the bad. Hard for us finite humans to make that judgment, which is one reason God communicates to us .

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

When was the last transmission from the mother ship?

Phone Call?

Burning Bush?

Voice from the sky?

You may communicate "to god".....but not the other way around.

Why do we live in such a boring time.... no more partings of the Red Sea, no more arks big enuff to hold 2 of each species of animal, no more burning bushes and carved tablets of 10 easy rules....

Strange how god has not performed any miracles in such a long time, when they used to be happening quite often. /images/graemlins/confused.gif

NotReady

05-31-2007, 04:36 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Here is the post i was referring to...

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I remember reading the first part. Thought you was just funnin. Anyway, question answered, right?

[ QUOTE ]

when they used to be happening quite often

[/ QUOTE ]

The miracles of the Bible happened very infrequently over a very long period of time in a very small geographical location and mostly in view of relatively few people.

But God makes Himself known to all - see Romans 1. Every waking moment reveals to you the continuing wonder of His creation and providence. You don't think of the sunrise as a miracle because it happens every day. Familiarity breeds contempt.

Taraz

05-31-2007, 04:50 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
A lot of theologians admit that their positions can't be based on rationality but that they are based on revelation and belief. If NotReady consistently insists that he can base his positions on reason he's pretty much alone with that.

And if he says he can't base his positions on reason but he can defend them rationally, that's silly. It's like I claim "there is a mermaid living in my cellar" and then I try to come up with good rational reasons to defend that position but does it really makes sense if your whole premise and claim is not based on reason?

I know belief in 'cellar mermaids' is not common but has the fact that a belief is common ever been evidence that it's true? Witches, perhaps? What if I say I had a spiritual experience and that I felt the mermaid's presence in the cellar. You could interpret that as one subjective way of trying to understand God's revelations like PairTheBoard likes to put it. So is there really a difference between a belief in a 'cellar mermaid' and one version of God if we discount popularity (which also tells us that there are numerous interpretations of God, why can't my mermaid be one of them? Who decides which revelation is close enough to true God?)

[/ QUOTE ]

I think the rational and intelligent theist would respond that you're free to have your mermaid interpretation. But they would also say that since nobody shares your interpretation we shouldn't give it much credence. They would also probably say that majority rules, so if your views are unpopular, you better go out and try to change some people's minds.

[/ QUOTE ]

So it's the popularity thing. If that's best what the intelligent theists got that's pretty bad.

[/ QUOTE ]

I just think it's the one of the only things you can say because there are such widely varying interpretations of most religions.

I guess they could also point to the fact that there isn't much 'evidence' for the mermaid other than your personal experience. And then they'd point to various religious Scriptures.

I don't know. In my view, people have been searching for explanations for their spiritual experiences for millennia. If I were a theist I would trust that they probably made some headway on that goal and I would start from wherever they left off.

JussiUt

05-31-2007, 04:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

a shame but he's not really capable of having debates.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's impossible to debate someone who's only response is"You're deluded" or "You're irrational".

Funny how that works.

[/ QUOTE ]

Ok, so you have somehow been offended by me? That's pretty weird. I have never insulted you nor put words on your mouth. You claim you're rational, I give my counter arguments and you refuse to answer my points. I guess it's easier to refute me than to actually come up with answers to my arguments.

If I think you're irrational does that mean you're going to ignore me? You can do what you please but I seriously don't understand how you have been able to hang around here so much without getting accustomed to critical counter arguments. Answer this, do you think that you can prove that there is a higher meaning to your spiritual experiences?

NotReady

05-31-2007, 05:06 PM

[ QUOTE ]

If I think you're irrational does that mean you're going to ignore me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, when you just state it and don't demonstrate it and whenever I give reasons you ignore them and call me deluded.

[ QUOTE ]

do you think that you can prove that there is a higher meaning to your spiritual experiences?

[/ QUOTE ]

That depends on what you mean by proof. I can offer, and have offered, evidence and arguments. I think all people are logically and morally obligated to respond to God so I think there are sufficient arguments and evidences - but if you assume God doesn't exist nothing I say can prove to you that He does.

pokerbobo

05-31-2007, 05:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

Here is the post i was referring to...

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I remember reading the first part. Thought you was just funnin. Anyway, question answered, right?

[ QUOTE ]

when they used to be happening quite often

[/ QUOTE ]

The miracles of the Bible happened very infrequently over a very long period of time in a very small geographical location and mostly in view of relatively few people.

But God makes Himself known to all - see Romans 1. Every waking moment reveals to you the continuing wonder of His creation and providence. You don't think of the sunrise as a miracle because it happens every day. Familiarity breeds contempt.

[/ QUOTE ]

The earth rotating and orbiting around a star that creates a sunrise is a miracle? Good One!

I thought the earth was only about 6000 years old to the literalists. All those miracles in the first 4000-4500 years....and since then....nada so much. Maybe god is punishing the growing athiest population...he is a vengeful god, is he not?

NotReady

05-31-2007, 05:42 PM

[ QUOTE ]

The earth rotating and orbiting around a star that creates a sunrise is a miracle? Good One!

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, you explain it. Remember, Newton couldn't, but that shouldn't slow you down.

pokerbobo

05-31-2007, 07:13 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

The earth rotating and orbiting around a star that creates a sunrise is a miracle? Good One!

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, you explain it. Remember, Newton couldn't, but that shouldn't slow you down.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not a scientist...but I'll give it a shot.

I'm sure you have heard of gravity.... the larger the mass, the more gravity. The sun's mass is very large, therefore the earth, as well as the other planets in our solar system are held in orbit around the sun. (our moon's gravity also causes the tides to go in and out) perhaps high tide is one of those everyday miracles i have grown to not notice too?

Got it so far?

there is also a theory that our own moon actually struck the earth many millenia ago. (this you may not accept if you actually believe the earth to be only 6000 years old)
The moon striking earth knocked the earth onto the crooked axis that it is on, (and possibly also cause some, much or even all of the rotation of the earth) The moon, after this impact, was held in orbit around the earth now...(gravity again) The earth as it rotates, obviously creates the miracle of sunrise and sunset, as depending on your location, the sun is either visible, or it is not.

I assume this is pointless to you if you are a bible literalist, how can I prove or even theorize something happened at a time or era you don't even aknowledge ever existed?

Any help from less galacticly challenged people will be apprceiated, but I think enuff of my time has been spent on happenings that occurred millions or billions of years prior to Not Ready's start of time.

NotReady

05-31-2007, 07:49 PM

[ QUOTE ]

I'm not a scientist...but I'll give it a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newton was and knew most or all of what you say but he still thought God caused gravity. What do you know he didn't?

m_the0ry

05-31-2007, 10:05 PM

[ QUOTE ]
Newton [...] knew most or all of what you say

[/ QUOTE ]

No he didn't, this statement is just flat out wrong.

VegasNick

05-31-2007, 10:20 PM

if God willingly gave us free will.......then i dont see a more textbook defeniton of evil

NotReady

05-31-2007, 11:27 PM

[ QUOTE ]

No he didn't, this statement is just flat out wrong.

[/ QUOTE ]

I'm not sure about the moon hitting earth theory, which is why I said most. And I don't think that theory has much if any to do with the sunrise, which is the subject matter we're discussing. What of the rest of it is wrong?

David Sklansky

05-31-2007, 11:48 PM

"Newton was and knew most or all of what you say but he still thought God caused gravity. What do you know he didn't?"

I think he might be right. So did other smart people 5000 and 2000 years ago. That's why they conjured up ridiculous tales elaborating on the subject. Because leaving it at that seemed somehow senseless.

NotReady

05-31-2007, 11:59 PM

[ QUOTE ]

Because leaving it at that seemed somehow senseless.

[/ QUOTE ]

Still does, whether you think the explanation is ridiculous or not.

pokerbobo

06-01-2007, 12:04 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I'm not a scientist...but I'll give it a shot.

[/ QUOTE ]

Newton was and knew most or all of what you say but he still thought God caused gravity. What do you know he didn't?

[/ QUOTE ]

Mass causes gravity..... Let me put it in a more theoretical way. Sometimes the immense mass of the sun, black holes, etc cannot be imagined in some minds, much like the vast distances of the universe.

I will attempt to bring it down to more readily digestable size for you. In theory.... (assuming great medical advances) Big Fat Ugly Stupid Rosie Odonnell could eat enough to become so fat, that her mass would create gravity. Food would then be drawn by gravity into that blackhole of a mouth she has....and her mass would continue to grow and her gravitational pull would increase. Forever and ever pulling in more food and expanding in mass. /images/graemlins/wink.gif

NotReady

06-01-2007, 12:51 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Mass causes gravity

[/ QUOTE ]

I will attempt to explain the painfully obvious to you - Newton knew about mass:

From somewhere on the net:
[ QUOTE ]

He also understood that an object with more matter –mass- exerted the greater force, or pulled smaller object toward it.

[/ QUOTE ]

m_the0ry

06-01-2007, 01:16 AM

From the wiki on Principa Mathematica,

[ QUOTE ]
he deduced correctly that the centre of mass remains in uniform motion; second, he made his first, but mistaken, analysis of circular motion assuming that there must exist a (repulsive) centrifugal force.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
Newton first understood of the role of inertia in the problem of circular motion— that the tendency of a body is to fly off in a straight line, and that an attractive force must keep it moving in a circle. In reply Newton drew (and described) a fancied trajectory of a body, initially with only tangential velocity, falling towards a centre of attraction in a spiral.

[/ QUOTE ]

[ QUOTE ]
In this work Newton stated the three universal laws of motion that were not to be improved upon for more than two hundred years

[/ QUOTE ]

The list is basically endless. Don't get me wrong, Newton made revolutionary insights on gravity and orbits but they were revolutionary for a time period where heliocentricism was barely becoming consensus. A time where luminiferous aether would be thought to pervade the universe and phlogiston made things burn.

Every time God is brought into scientific theory it is only to leave no question unanswered and in that sense is a great act of egotism. I can't explain why x works right now, so it must be the workings of God. Until someone else explains it.

NotReady

06-01-2007, 01:35 AM

[ QUOTE ]

Every time God is brought into scientific theory

[/ QUOTE ]

Newton didn't do that. Neither do I.

Just because he made mistakes doesn't prove he didn't know all the relevant aspects of what we are discussing. DS has already acknowledged as much.

If someday someone finds a graviton or demonstrates that space really is curved, i.e., a natural explanation for gravity, or any other natural law for that matter, the issue will still be the same. Which is the point I'm trying to show. There are plenty of scientists today who know far more than Newton did but still believe God is necessary for ultimate explanatory power. That's not a scientific theory about natural law, it's a metaphysical position. The alternative, held by atheist scientists, is that it all popped up out of nothing for no reason, is basically self-caused and self-sustaining - also a metaphysical position.

gwhiz_612

06-01-2007, 01:38 AM

If I gave my dog free will and told him go ahead and do whatever it is you want you are free. What can the dog actually do? I mean, could he go to the grocery store and buy all the ice cream his heart desires and come home and order the playboy channel? No. He has the free will that I give him but it is limited to his ability to make choices. Basicly he can only be as free as his nature will allow him to be. I therefore presume that man, even though his will may seem free, still can only make choices that are within his ability to choose. For instance if I wanted to go the rest of my life and not offend anyone on earth could I do it? What if I by my own free will decide that I will remember everything that I ever see or do? I cannot because it is beyond my physical ability. The same is true in man's spiritual being, if I am by nature able to sin (fall short of the mark) or better yet, unable to not sin then my free will has limitations according to my nature. The reason God told Adam not to eat the fruit,(it wasn't an apple) was so that man would have the ability to disobey. God was actually giving Adam a law. There was no exceptions to this command. Adam was now in a situation where he could disobey this law. To obey it fully would be an expression of obedience and would fall into the catagory of love. When temptation would arise (nature) to eat the fruit man would have a choice. Satisfy the flesh and exercise his will to eat or sacrifice and deny his natural desire expressing love to God by obedience and denying his desire. In the end the story shows that man is unable to deny himself fully and if given the ability to disobey will exercise this option no matter what the cost.

m_the0ry

06-01-2007, 01:38 AM

[ QUOTE ]
There are plenty of scientists today who know far more than Newton did but still believe God is necessary for ultimate explanatory power.

[/ QUOTE ]

I think you and I just have different names for the same things, because I call this 'filling the gap with God'.

gwhiz_612

06-01-2007, 01:58 AM

[ QUOTE ]
Fair enough but there is a contradiction here. If god knew Adam would eat the apple there was really no point in his whole "don't eat from that tree" charade. And free will would in fact be an illusion for Adam in that case. So I'd think god either a)didn't really give us free will, b)does not really have knowledge of everything that will ever happen, or c)chose to limit his knowledge specifically where human free will was concerned. Is there another option I am missing?

[/ QUOTE ] d.)God knew that Adam would eat from the tree even if commanded not to do so. God allowed Adam to exercise his freewill and disobey. God has now revealed to Adam that he has chosen to obey his own will over God's will and with that God reveals that He is also "just". Where a commandment has been broken a sentence has to be given. The sentence in this case was death. This is how God has chose to also reveal his love toward man in that even though we have violated the covenant and disobeyed the law that was given and even though God is just and must punish a lawbreaker, He in his love has prepard a sacrifice (in advance)that would satisfy the penalty and redeem the lawbreaker (Grace).

NotReady

06-01-2007, 02:10 AM

[ QUOTE ]

I think you and I just have different names for the same things, because I call this 'filling the gap with God'.

[/ QUOTE ]

A gap will always exist because man is finite. It is in our nature to fill that gap with something. Atheists do so just as much as theists. And there are really only two choices to fill it with.

JussiUt

06-01-2007, 04:17 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

If I think you're irrational does that mean you're going to ignore me?

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, when you just state it and don't demonstrate it and whenever I give reasons you ignore them and call me deluded.

[/ QUOTE ]

Like I ever did that. Well, it's your call. I tried to have a good debate with you, I didn't insult you nor did I ever dismiss your point as irrational and didn't notion it when giving my counter arguments.

I wish there would be more theists on this board. Debating would be much more fruitful when I don't constantly have to play with the word 'rational' and beware that by using it "wrong" in my debate pal's mind he doesn't play with me anymore.

pokerbobo

06-01-2007, 04:28 AM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think you and I just have different names for the same things, because I call this 'filling the gap with God'.

[/ QUOTE ]

A gap will always exist because man is finite. It is in our nature to fill that gap with something. Atheists do so just as much as theists. And there are really only two choices to fill it with.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is when you fill the gap with god, science eventually removes god and fills it with fact. When lightning was not understood, you filled the gap with god, he is now removed. I will not bother making a whole list of things now explained with science that had been filled with god...but you must get the point. Science is winning....god does not control even 5 % of what he has historically been given credit for.

Please dont respond with "god actually controls everything"

Bigdaddydvo

06-01-2007, 02:35 PM

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I think you and I just have different names for the same things, because I call this 'filling the gap with God'.

[/ QUOTE ]

A gap will always exist because man is finite. It is in our nature to fill that gap with something. Atheists do so just as much as theists. And there are really only two choices to fill it with.

[/ QUOTE ]

The difference is when you fill the gap with god, science eventually removes god and fills it with fact. When lightning was not understood, you filled the gap with god, he is now removed. I will not bother making a whole list of things now explained with science that had been filled with god...but you must get the point. Science is winning....god does not control even 5 % of what he has historically been given credit for.

Please dont respond with "god actually controls everything"

[/ QUOTE ]

Science, has not, nor ever will, satisfactorily answer the "First Cause" question which initiated the Big Bang. I think God is going to safely hang onto that one for some time to come.