Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Simple question, this isn't about whether or not God exists. For the purposes of this thread it will be assumed he does in some form. I've seen a lot of religious people say God is omnipotent and omniscient. These aren't just the "crazy" religious people that do things like take the bible seriously. I also have no problem with this because obviously if he is God he should be omnipotent and omniscient.

But it made me think about free will. If God already knows everything that will happen, it means he would of known that even before he created humanity. If we are created with him already knowing everything we will do, do we have actual free will?

The wind knows where it blows, but the wind knows nothing. God is the same way.

I won't argue the premise of God's existence for the sake of the OP. But the issue of free will as defined by (most) religions has nothing to do with God's omniscience. But everything to do with causality.

Religious free will, in philosophy and scientific circles, is more commonly known as libertarian free will (not to be confused with the political ideology). Basically, it states that we have the ability to choose between two outcomes. Chocolate or vanilla? More to the point, good or evil? We could choose either one, states libertarian free will. This makes intuitive sense, and feels true to us when we think about our thought processes and choices.

Except there's a problem. Just as gravity affects everything equally according to its force, just as atoms move according to the physical laws of the universe, we're made of the same stuff and subject to the same forces. No known study or test that's ever been conducted suggests anything other than this: that we are entirely causal beings. Libertarian free will requires a miracle to occur each time a choice is made. In a completely literal sense, it requires a defiance of the fundamental laws of physics with each decision to hold true. At that point, the only defenses of the concept go one of two ways: either they devolve into magical thinking (i.e. "humans are special" or they water down the idea to the extent that it either makes no coherent sense or is indistinguishable from the deterministic models it seeks to argue against.

Because we're incapable of knowing what these forces are at any given moment, and how they will affect us, we're able to maintain the illusion of free will.

...

More specific to the OP's question, if we took libertarian free will as true, I'd actually have no problem reconciling it with God's omniscience. There are numerous potential ways through that argument. One might be to say that someone else knowing our choices in advance doesn't make them any less our own. Or they may say that God willingly gives up his omniscience in order to imbue his creations with said free will. Or simply invoke the impossibility of understanding a concept as abstract as omniscience, that's entirely beyond our human capacity to fathom, and then resorting to faith, passages from the Bible, or whatever other source you'd like to credit. I prefer the first of those three, but any could suffice. But like the "Can God make a rock so big he can't lift it?" question, it's vexing only in a rudimentary sense.

Originally posted by Surtur
If God already knows everything that will happen, it means he would of known that even before he created humanity. If we are created with him already knowing everything we will do, do we have actual free will? I would say that 'God' is sooo infinite, there is room in creation for free will, determinism and the resulting paradox. We can't understand this, but then, we are not That Conscious.

Perhaps it's a kind of Reality Superposition ... child's play for Unconditional Infinity.

Originally posted by Mindship
I would say that 'God' is sooo infinite, there is room in creation for free will, determinism and the resulting paradox. We can't understand this, but then, we are not That Conscious.

Perhaps it's a kind of Reality Superposition ... child's play for Unconditional Infinity.

Poetic, but nonsensical. By saying we can't understand it, you're just pushing this belief into the realm of blind, unsupported faith. In the meantime, we have, well, every bit of empirical evidence ever on the subject to suggest that the universe, and thus humans, are entirely deterministic.

There are various philosophical camps on free will, both within religion and without. I can't say I've ever seen one espousing both determinism AND libertarian free will, though. At least not with anything resembling a following. Points for originality, at least.

Btw, on your use of the idea of superposition, quantum theorists have tried to work libertarian free will in the back door of quantum uncertainty before. With no success. Obviously it's foolish to say we know everything, but what we do know is quite unambiguous.

There are many things that are beyond our tiny human minds to understand and/or comprehend concerning God but I'd say Mindship pretty much hit the nail on the head. Of course free will exists. God would not make a bunch of robots or puppets who had no control over their actions or were pre-ordained to follow a certain path in their life. Everyone has a choice. Even the angels who serve God. They serve Him and praise Him out of love not because they're forced to. As proven by the Lucifer rebellion, they can choose to turn against Him if they so choose. The fact that God is all-knowing doesn't prove that free will doesn't exist. It's irrelevant.


Oh, and Digi, our faith is not "blind" as so many of you atheists always assume. Creation itself and Jesus Christ is all the proof that those of us who know God exists will ever need.

Originally posted by Star428
Of course free will exists.

See, the difference between us is that I wouldn't be caught saying "Of course we know..." with anything other than a sarcastic tone. If there were anything resembling such certainty, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Your language belies your methodology in deriving your beliefs.

Creation isn't a defense of one idea over another, though. Your argument is basically: "the universe exists, ergo my ideas are the right ones." Creation implies creation. The logical gap between creation and a specific religion's version of free will is missing about 20 logical steps.

I'm talking about two different ideas, one of which has every bit of evidence known to us. Obviously your beliefs are based in faith and/or derived from non-empirical authorities, so we're not going to agree. But let me try a quick thought experiment with you. No jokes, I just want to hear your response.

...

You are about to go get ice cream and you are torn between chocolate and vanilla. You aren't leaning one way or another, and it feels like a literal coin flip internally. You drive to the ice cream shop and walk up to the counter. Which do you pick?

The choice itself isn't important yet. Let's say it's vanilla. Now, we're going to rewind time back to the point at which you left for the ice cream shop. Literally, the universe moves backwards in time to that exact moment, and every atom is in the same place it was the first time. And, here's the other important part, you are not aware of the previous iteration of this. You're driving to the shop the same as before, with the same ambiguity over your choice.

You picked vanilla the first time. Which flavor do you pick the second time?

Now do the same thing again. You are not aware of previous iterations, and every iota of existence is rewound to the precise place it was in the first iteration. Which do you pick the third time? The fourth? Fifth? Hundredth? Millionth?

Originally posted by Digi
You're closer than the others to actually aligning with plausible scientific thought. But I've also seen research on quantum uncertainty that casts a pall over this idea. The old line was that observing something caused the waveform to collapse, which added the idea that it required actual human observation in order to collapse. It gave a specialness to human involvement that was unwarranted. In actuality, the physical conditions needed to observe something (light, etc.) collapse quantum superpositions irrespective of the human element.

There have also been attempts to locate quantum vibrations in neurons and such, in order to justify the idea that two decisions can exist at once and may theoretically split into multiple universes. While interesting, and requiring further study, the conclusions so far have been underwhelming for its proponents. Basically, nothing concrete has been found that would suggest quantum states in the brain/consciousness/neurons/etc. And if they were, detractors point out that such states likely wouldn't be significant enough to affect our minds at a level which would actually alter our choices. Basically, even the proven presence of quantum vibrations would only be the first step in a long series of steps to prove something resembling free will in a libertarian sense.

Obviously I'm a layman relating these ideas. It's not comprehensive nor, likely, without errors and oversimplifications. Feel free to do your own research, and I hope further research is done on this idea. And as I mentioned, you're a lot closer to a possible justification than any I've seen in this thread so far. But given what we know so far, I find this explanation unlikely, at best. And, given the intrinsic appeal of an idea like libertarian free will, I think it's far more likely that we're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in order to justify an idea that never made much sense in the first place.

I never believed that humans are responsible for collapsing the waveform. We are tide to causality like blinders. I can only realize the reality that is connected by causality.

I could be wrong, but if I had the chance to do it all over again, I believe I would make the same mistake.

Originally posted by Digi
Poetic, but nonsensical. By saying we can't understand it, you're just pushing this belief into the realm of blind, unsupported faith. In the meantime, we have, well, every bit of empirical evidence ever on the subject to suggest that the universe, and thus humans, are entirely deterministic.

There are various philosophical camps on free will, both within religion and without. I can't say I've ever seen one espousing both determinism AND libertarian free will, though. At least not with anything resembling a following. Points for originality, at least.

Btw, on your use of the idea of superposition, quantum theorists have tried to work libertarian free will in the back door of quantum uncertainty before. With no success. Obviously it's foolish to say we know everything, but what we do know is quite unambiguous. Digi, I would expect no less from you but I believe the OP said ...
Originally posted by Surtur
this isn't about whether or not God exists. For the purposes of this thread it will be assumed he does in some form.
I was trying to frame my response from that angle (a little trickier than I thought it would be). Had this been another straight-out "Does God exist?" thread, my response would've centered on the only certainty I know: that free will can be regarded as a reliable as-if.

Btw, the ineffability of the Absolute/God/Whatever is a core element of the perennial philosophy, of all the great mystical schools of thought. It is not a blind-faith response but ultimately based on meditative experiences. Now what these experiences may actually mean is the $64,000 question: are they real glimpses of the Transcendent, or are they reflecting only common brain structure and process?

This is why I like the Zen approach, which is essentially: "You want to find out something? (Does 'God' exists?) Do this (meditate). Observe. Then we'll talk about it."

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I never believed that humans are responsible for collapsing the waveform. We are tide to causality like blinders. I can only realize the reality that is connected by causality.

I could be wrong, but if I had the chance to do it all over again, I believe I would make the same mistake.

Fair enough. I think that the theory of a multiverse is fascinating, and well worth study. But that if it exists, it's nothing like most people imagine or want it to be, especially as it pertains to personal decisions. And I think that trying to use it to shoehorn free will into the discussion is intellectually irresponsible wishful thinking.

That's not what you're doing. You're more than content with the idea of causality. But the dogged defense of free will by many, I believe, is rooted in an emotional response to their fears of the alternative.

Frankly, I find determinism more comforting than libertarian free will. My decisions are entirely my own, created and executed by the causal entity that is me. It's cool.

Originally posted by Mindship
Digi, I would expect no less from you but I believe the OP said ...

I was trying to frame my response from that angle (a little trickier than I thought it would be). Had this been another straight-out "Does God exist?" thread, my response would've centered on the only certainty I know: that free will can be regarded as a reliable as-if.

Lol, ok. My bad.



In fairness, it's really hard to dance around the question within OP's framework if I'm describing my thoughts on this.

Originally posted by Mindship
Btw, the ineffability of the Absolute/God/Whatever is a core element of the perennial philosophy, of all the great mystical schools of thought. It is not a blind-faith response but ultimately based on meditative experiences. Now what these experiences may actually mean is the $64,000 question: are they real glimpses of the Transcendent, or are they reflecting only common brain structure and process?

This is why I like the Zen approach, which is essentially: "You want to find out something? (Does 'God' exists?) Do this (meditate). Observe. Then we'll talk about it."

At least you acknowledge that it could just be a brain structure thing. Many don't. Because while the experience itself can feel transcendent, in terms of its descriptive value on reality, it's just a fancy hunch.

If God is omniscient, would he know whether Jesus could microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?

I'm actually interested in Star's response to my thought experiment. Ive not heard many religious responses to the question it raises. A shame it likely won't happen.

Originally posted by Bardock42
If God is omniscient, would he know whether Jesus could microwave a burrito so hot that he himself could not eat it?
Yes I do. Let me explain:

If Jesus is omnipotent he'd be able to eat a burrito of any temperature. Therefore a burrito of a temperature that Jesus wouldn't be able to eat couldn't logically exist.

So the answer is no; Jesus could not microwave a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it. This would go against Jesus omnipotence since you can't use logical absurdities to discredit ideas or arguments.

^

The above is a good reason to never take Christian mythology literally.

God gave us brains to hash everything out

Originally posted by Astner
This would not go against Jesus omnipotence since you can't use logical absurdities to discredit ideas or arguments.
Fixed.

Originally posted by Astner
Fixed.

But would Jesus be able of using logical absuldities to discredit his own omnipotence? You make a fine argument for God being a non-speaker instead of a performative-speaker mmm


Originally posted by Shakyamunison
^

The above is a good reason to never take Christian mythology literally.

From which part of the myth do you get the word "omnipotent"?

Originally posted by Bentley
...From which part of the myth do you get the word "omnipotent"?

What?

Originally posted by Digi
You're closer than the others to actually aligning with plausible scientific thought. But I've also seen research on quantum uncertainty that casts a pall over this idea. The old line was that observing something caused the waveform to collapse, which added the idea that it required actual human observation in order to collapse. It gave a specialness to human involvement that was unwarranted. In actuality, the physical conditions needed to observe something (light, etc.) collapse quantum superpositions irrespective of the human element.

There have also been attempts to locate quantum vibrations in neurons and such, in order to justify the idea that two decisions can exist at once and may theoretically split into multiple universes. While interesting, and requiring further study, the conclusions so far have been underwhelming for its proponents. Basically, nothing concrete has been found that would suggest quantum states in the brain/consciousness/neurons/etc. And if they were, detractors point out that such states likely wouldn't be significant enough to affect our minds at a level which would actually alter our choices. Basically, even the proven presence of quantum vibrations would only be the first step in a long series of steps to prove something resembling free will in a libertarian sense.

Obviously I'm a layman relating these ideas. It's not comprehensive nor, likely, without errors and oversimplifications. Feel free to do your own research, and I hope further research is done on this idea. And as I mentioned, you're a lot closer to a possible justification than any I've seen in this thread so far. But given what we know so far, I find this explanation unlikely, at best. And, given the intrinsic appeal of an idea like libertarian free will, I think it's far more likely that we're trying to fit a square peg into a round hole in order to justify an idea that never made much sense in the first place.

Digi, check this out:

http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/physicists-demonstrate-how-time-can-seem-to-run-backward-and-the-future-can-affect-the-past/

Originally posted by Astner
Yes I do. Let me explain:

If Jesus is omnipotent he'd be able to eat a burrito of any temperature. Therefore a burrito of a temperature that Jesus wouldn't be able to eat couldn't logically exist.

So the answer is no; Jesus could not microwave a burrito so hot that he couldn't eat it. This would go against Jesus omnipotence since you can't use logical absurdities to discredit ideas or arguments.

I feel like a can.

Originally posted by Bardock42
I feel like a can.

Why a can?

Originally posted by Surtur
Simple question, this isn't about whether or not God exists. For the purposes of this thread it will be assumed he does in some form. I've seen a lot of religious people say God is omnipotent and omniscient. These aren't just the "crazy" religious people that do things like take the bible seriously. I also have no problem with this because obviously if he is God he should be omnipotent and omniscient.

But it made me think about free will. If God already knows everything that will happen, it means he would of known that even before he created humanity. If we are created with him already knowing everything we will do, do we have actual free will?

Your question cannot be answered as is.

Scriptures say that some things God has preordained to happen. If he has ever interfered with anything in our time line then free will has been altered for all of us.

If the scriptures that say he preordained anything, including the death of Jesus, then none of us have free will.

Any interference or pre-ordained activity has to effect everyone in this time line.

Think of back to the future. The time science in it was fairly accurate as to any change up or down the time line creating a whole new one.

The butterfly effect basically.

Here is an example.

1Peter 1:20 0 He was chosen before the creation of the world, but was revealed in these last times for your sake.

If that quote is true, then the one to kill Jesus has no choice and no free will to do other than kill Jesus.

If God did not preordain or create anything, then I see no reason why he cannot fly up and down the time line and could know everything without affecting our free will.

If he did create or preordain anything then we cannot have free will.

Regards
DL

free will is real. Some people are predetermined to go to heaven though.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
free will is real. Some people are predetermined to go to heaven though.

Not if the latest experiment is true. See above.

Originally posted by Wonder Man
free will is real. Some people are predetermined to go to heaven though.

If any one event is pre-determined then everyone's free will has been compromised.

That is the butterfly effect. Have you never watched any time travel programs?

Regards
DL

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If any one event is pre-determined then everyone's free will has been compromised.

That is the butterfly effect. Have you never watched any time travel programs?

Regards
DL

No free will. I was destined to say that!

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What?


It seems that you're submitting the idea of God to an standard of the meaning of the word omnipotence. You can only proceed in such link if there is an actual equivalence in the myths you're addressing.

To rephrase my question: where does it say on the christian mythology that there are omnipotent beings?

Originally posted by Greatest I am
If any one event is pre-determined then everyone's free will has been compromised.
Omniscience, in contemporary philosophy, is defined in such a way that it doesn't force predestination on a system. You can still have a choice regardless of whether or not someone would knows what you're going to choose.

The easiest way of exemplifying this is to compare predetermined events to postdetermined events, where a postdetermined event is an event that has already happened.

Originally posted by Greatest I am
That is the butterfly effect. Have you never watched any time travel programs?
What does anything he said have to do with the nonlinear automatic control systems?

Originally posted by Bentley
It seems that you're submitting the idea of God to an standard of the meaning of the word omnipotence. You can only proceed in such link if there is an actual equivalence in the myths you're addressing.

To rephrase my question: where does it say on the christian mythology that there are omnipotent beings?

Just Google it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Just Google it.

I might as well defend your claims for you

Originally posted by Bentley
I might as well defend your claims for you

It's common knowledge. I just don't know the verse. That, you can look up. I have better things to do.

Now are you saying that the bible does not say that god is omnipotent?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
It's common knowledge. I just don't know the verse. That, you can look up. I have better things to do.

Now are you saying that the bible does not say that god is omnipotent?
The doctrine of omnipotence isn't a Biblical doctrine, it's from the 2nd century.

Originally posted by Astner
The doctrine of omnipotence isn't a Biblical doctrine, it's from the 2nd century.

http://www.allaboutgod.com/god-is-omnipotent-faq.htm

You could have also Goggled it.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
http://www.allaboutgod.com/god-is-omnipotent-faq.htm

You could have also Goggled it.
The Bible never uses the word omnipotence. It uses almighty, but almighty, or shadday in Hebrew, refers to authority and not power in the sense of mind-over-matter.

Other than that, if you read the verses in that none of them discusses unlimited power or omnipotence as it's conventionally used.

Originally posted by Astner
The Bible never uses the word omnipotence. It uses almighty, but almighty, or shadday in Hebrew, refers to authority and not power in the sense of mind-over-matter.

Other than that, if you read the verses in that none of them discusses unlimited power or omnipotence as it's conventionally used.

The original bible didn't use any English words.

I'm glad you don't believe that the god of the bible is omnipotent. This is something we can agree on. But most Christians would disagree with you.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The original bible didn't use any English words.
I know, but what I meant was that none of the English translations uses the word omnipotent; and the Bible doesn't even describe omnipotence as it is thought of today.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
I'm glad you don't believe that the god of the bible is omnipotent. This is something we can agree on. But most Christians would disagree with you.
When did I say that I didn't believe God was omnipotent? I simply pointed out that the doctrine of omnipotence is older than the Bible. The Bible itself doesn't take a stance on the matter, so it's up to interpretation.

Originally posted by Astner
I know, but what I meant was that none of the English translations uses the word omnipotent; and the Bible doesn't even describe omnipotence as it is thought of today.


When did I say that I didn't believe God was omnipotent? I simply pointed out that the doctrine of omnipotence is older than the Bible. The Bible itself doesn't take a stance on the matter, so it's up to interpretation.

Stop slitting hairs.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Stop slitting hairs.
I'm not. I have no reason to believe or think about whether or not the Biblical representation of God was intended to be omnipotent.

Originally posted by Astner
I'm not. I have no reason to believe or think about whether or not the Biblical representation of God was intended to be omnipotent.

But then you believe that god is omnipotent. Therefore it is appropriate for someone to talk about god's omnipotence without the word ever being in the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But then you believe that god is omnipotent.
No I don't. You're presenting a false dichotomy.

Originally posted by Astner
No I don't. You're presenting a false dichotomy.

Whatever...

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
Digi, check this out:

http://secondnexus.com/technology-and-innovation/physicists-demonstrate-how-time-can-seem-to-run-backward-and-the-future-can-affect-the-past/

This is fascinating, thanks! I'd argue - and my guess is that the scientists involved in the experiment would as well - that this still only represents 1 of about 10-12 scientific steps that are in need of proving before we can consider libertarian free will a plausible possibility. Off the top of my head, do we know quantum reactions such as the one in the controlled experiment take place within the brain? And are these reactions on a scale that could meaningfully affect our decisions (or are they too small to matter)? More immediately, can their results be verified and repeated by others? And are there other explanations that don't involve backward causality that need to be considered alongside their theory? There are undoubtedly others.

I'm not throwing a wet blanket over your take here. It's worth further investigation and is interesting to think about. These sorts of studies - and these sort of discussions - represent the type of thinking on free will that I think is valuable to the public discourse. I'm just advocating proper caution before leaping to undue conclusions.

Originally posted by Digi
This is fascinating, thanks! I'd argue - and my guess is that the scientists involved in the experiment would as well - that this still only represents 1 of about 10-12 scientific steps that are in need of proving before we can consider libertarian free will a plausible possibility. Off the top of my head, do we know quantum reactions such as the one in the controlled experiment take place within the brain? And are these reactions on a scale that could meaningfully affect our decisions (or are they too small to matter)? More immediately, can their results be verified and repeated by others? And are there other explanations that don't involve backward causality that need to be considered alongside their theory? There are undoubtedly others.

I'm not throwing a wet blanket over your take here. It's worth further investigation and is interesting to think about. I'm just advocating proper caution before leaping to undue conclusions.

I totally agree. The experiment needs to be repeated in many different ways before any true conclusion can be made, but it makes me think.

Originally posted by Surtur
Simple question, this isn't about whether or not God exists. For the purposes of this thread it will be assumed he does in some form. I've seen a lot of religious people say God is omnipotent and omniscient. These aren't just the "crazy" religious people that do things like take the bible seriously. I also have no problem with this because obviously if he is God he should be omnipotent and omniscient.

But it made me think about free will. If God already knows everything that will happen, it means he would of known that even before he created humanity. If we are created with him already knowing everything we will do, do we have actual free will?

i am a Christian, i believe in God, Christ and Holy Spirit... but i don't believe that God knows all:

"You shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul."
Deuteronomy 13:3

and i don't believe that God can do everything:

"That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us."
Hebrews 6:18

No, not at all, but those who believe make up the best excuses as to how it's possible.

Originally posted by dyajeep
i am a Christian, i believe in God, Christ and Holy Spirit... but i don't believe that God knows all:

"You shall not listen to the words of that prophet or to that dreamer of dreams; for the Lord your God is testing you, to know whether you love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul."
Deuteronomy 13:3

and i don't believe that God can do everything:

"That by two immutable things, in which it is impossible for God to lie, we might have strong consolation, who have fled for refuge to lay hold of the hope set before us."
Hebrews 6:18

Nice.





This is something similar to what I believe. He isn't purely omniscient or omnipotent.

Originally posted by Surtur
Simple question, this isn't about whether or not God exists. For the purposes of this thread it will be assumed he does in some form. I've seen a lot of religious people say God is omnipotent and omniscient. These aren't just the "crazy" religious people that do things like take the bible seriously. I also have no problem with this because obviously if he is God he should be omnipotent and omniscient.

But it made me think about free will. If God already knows everything that will happen, it means he would of known that even before he created humanity. If we are created with him already knowing everything we will do, do we have actual free will?

It depends upon how you define omniscience. If the latter entails God knowing the future before it happens, i.e. absolute determinism, then free will cannot exist. If the latter entails knowledge over everything as it occurs in the universe of space-time as a creative emanation and activity of God that plays itself out in serial time wherein the human being is allowed to partake in this process as a free and willing being, i.e. the future does not exist until it happens and becomes the present, then it can.

Originally posted by AndrewBolt
No, not at all, but those who believe make up the best excuses as to how it's possible.



BS. The fact that God knows how it will all turn out doesn't change the fact that people still have a choice in their actions. You non-believers pathetic attempts at confusing people is so sad.

Originally posted by Star428
BS. The fact that God knows how it will all turn out doesn't change the fact that people still have a choice in their actions. You non-believers pathetic attempts at confusing people is so sad.

Wrong. If god is 'god' (i.e. creator of ALL things) and god has knowledge of his entire plan, from beginning to end, how can anyone have free will?

If god knows now whether you are going to hell or not when you die... is there anything you can do to change this outcome?

It's "BS" for you because filthy apologists have no answer for it.

Its called non intervention..

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Wrong. If god is 'god' (i.e. creator of ALL things) and god has knowledge of his entire plan, from beginning to end, how can anyone have free will?
So if I offer you a piece of pie and I know you'll accept it, does that mean that you didn't have a choice in accepting it?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The original bible didn't use any English words.

I'm glad you don't believe that the god of the bible is omnipotent. This is something we can agree on. But most Christians would disagree with you.

We agree the Bible never says anything about omnipotence and that the Myths are not to take the blame on things they never said?

Originally posted by Astner
So if I offer you a piece of pie and I know you'll accept it, does that mean that you didn't have a choice in accepting it?

Yes, that's precisely what it means. As far as pie goes, if you offer a piece to a thousand people and you guess right every time, it's something other than a guess. Some people might dislike your pie and they are indistinguishable from others. Unless you have some way of negating free will there's no way for you to know anything. It's a guess that will inevitably be wrong.

I know that everyone now living (and who will be alive a week from now) will take a breath of air in the next few minutes. I know that everyone now living (and who will be alive a week from now) will urinate in the next few days. It's not free will.

Why you Christian religious types continue with your ridiculous analogies is something I don't know but it makes no sense and never has. If the future is known without error, there's no way I can do other than what the Great Knower knows.

Originally posted by Ayelewis
Why you Christian religious types continue with your ridiculous analogies is something I don't know but it makes no sense and never has. If the future is known without error, there's no way I can do other than what the Great Knower knows.


Analogies is a legitimate way of understanding things, it very much makes a lot of sense to use that potential. In the other hand, fallacious arguments that are based on abstract ideas can be literaly nonsensical.

You're barking at the wrong tree here.

Originally posted by Bentley
We agree the Bible never says anything about omnipotence and that the Myths are not to take the blame on things they never said?

The bible is say that god was omnipotent, but it didn't us that word. The meaning is the same.

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-0530473169154130:8260762369&ie=UTF-8&q=omnipotent&sa=Search&ref=#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=omnipotent&gsc.page=1

To be literal, the bible never used any English words until it was translated.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The bible is say that god was omnipotent, but it didn't us that word. The meaning is the same.

http://www.google.com/cse?cx=partner-pub-0530473169154130:8260762369&ie=UTF-8&q=omnipotent&sa=Search&ref=#gsc.tab=0&gsc.q=omnipotent&gsc.page=1

To be literal, the bible never used any English words until it was translated.

If the concept of omnipotence didn't exist (to the relevant transcriptors) when the Bible was written then you can't just say it was "meant" to be that.

Omnipotence is not just an English word, is a concept with philosophical bagagge that is linked with centuries of argumentation all over the civilized word. You just don't assume things fit that kind of cultural overcomplexification, specially not without backing.

Originally posted by Bentley
If the concept of omnipotence didn't exist (to the relevant transcriptors) when the Bible was written then you can't just say it was "meant" to be that.

Omnipotence is not just an English word, is a concept with philosophical bagagge that is linked with centuries of argumentation all over the civilized word. You just don't assume things fit that kind of cultural overcomplexification, specially not without backing.

The idea that god is omnipotent is common throughout Christianity, here in the US.

When I say Christian mythology, I am not talking about Christianity of the past. I am talking about all the beliefs taken as a whole. That includes a lot of things that are not in the bible, like the rapture.

The rapture is in First Thessalonians, though. That's NT, as well.

Originally posted by The Lost
The rapture is in First Thessalonians, though. That's NT, as well.

But the word rapture is not in the bible.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The idea that god is omnipotent is common throughout Christianity, here in the US.

Prayers addressed to God for entirely selfish reasons, even to do harm into others, are common in Christianity. That doesn't mean they are an integral part of the doctrine though.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
When I say Christian mythology, I am not talking about Christianity of the past. I am talking about all the beliefs taken as a whole. That includes a lot of things that are not in the bible, like the rapture.

Ok, that's probably the source of our misunderstanding then. For me the Mythology is the gathering of tales and lore regarding christian figures, none of them as far as I know, ever needed an actual omnipotent in the place of God. As for the cultural image or perception of modern christians, I can understand the common idea of omnipotence linked to the Divine and in that case lot of thought isn't attached to that notion.

Nowadays trying to dismiss christianity by dismissing omnipotence it's an institutional strawman argument. Christianity itself does not need the concept of omnipotence.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the word rapture is not in the bible.

Nor the word Trinity. But I guess those terms were later invented to describe Biblical notions as opposed to Omnipotence that works (or fails to work) perfectly beyond the religious horizon.

Originally posted by Bentley
Nor the word Trinity. But I guess those terms were later invented to describe Biblical notions as opposed to Omnipotence that works (or fails to work) perfectly beyond the religious horizon.

So, what is your point now?

Originally posted by Bentley
Prayers addressed to God for entirely selfish reasons, even to do harm into others, are common in Christianity. That doesn't mean they are an integral part of the doctrine though.



Ok, that's probably the source of our misunderstanding then. For me the Mythology is the gathering of tales and lore regarding christian figures, none of them as far as I know, ever needed an actual omnipotent in the place of God. As for the cultural image or perception of modern christians, I can understand the common idea of omnipotence linked to the Divine and in that case lot of thought isn't attached to that notion.

Nowadays trying to dismiss christianity by dismissing omnipotence it's an institutional strawman argument. Christianity itself does not need the concept of omnipotence.

What? The topic is "If God is omniscient, does free will exist?"

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
But the word rapture is not in the bible.

Right, but you said "the rapture", not "the word rapture."

You have to understand why anyone would think you were discussing the concept and not simply the term.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
So, what is your point now?

The same as before, a word is not a concept

Actually just before we were discussing about cultural conceptions, lore and official tradition and I'm sure there is some interesting discussion to be had about that. I'm afraid it might be a bit too "definition based" to be actually fun though (we'd be bickering way too much about simple misunderstandings ).

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
What? The topic is "If God is omniscient, does free will exist?"

But we were talking about omnipotence, not omniscience. We were off topic all the way

Originally posted by Bentley
But we were talking about omnipotence, not omniscience. We were off topic all the way

Well, I was trying to follow you, but...

Again, we were arguing religion in the religion forum. Technically speaking, you don't need religion at all to fully address the topic of this thread (and there is a philosophy forum right above this one). It's actually painfully annoying to discuss the concept of freewill since the temporal experience assumed for it to work is a full mess.

What I mean is, sorry for derailing the thread :'(

Originally posted by Bentley
Again, we were arguing religion in the religion forum. Technically speaking, you don't need religion at all to fully address the topic of this thread (and there is a philosophy forum right above this one). It's actually painfully annoying to discuss the concept of freewill since the temporal experience assumed for it to work is a full mess.

What I mean is, sorry for derailing the thread :'(

I don't think it was you. I could have picked the wrong word from the spell checker.

Behold, this entire thread in comedic video form:

aMVE0fN_Y4s

It even tackles quantum physics. It's remarkably similar to basically every layman's internet discussion of this on the interwebs. Some high-level meta humor going on.

They touch on moral responsibility, which is considered separate from free will by most philosophers. But they likely would have lost their audience if they had gone down that rabbit hole.

Originally posted by Digi
Behold, this entire thread in comedic video form:

aMVE0fN_Y4s

It even tackles quantum physics. It's remarkably similar to basically every layman's internet discussion of this on the interwebs. Some high-level meta humor going on.

They touch on moral responsibility, which is considered separate from free will by most philosophers. But they likely would have lost their audience if they had gone down that rabbit hole.

Does it mention Epigenetics?

The way the rabbis explain it to me is yes God is omniscient and therefore knows what we're going to do. However, he still gives us the free will to do it and since we cannot know God on any level, as far as we humanly understand, we have free will.

Don't know what God you're talking about but as far as Judaism is concerned, God is all knowing all powerful.

Originally posted by Ionceknewu
Does it mention Epigenetics?

I'm not convinced you aren't a troll yet, so I'm withholding discussing anything with you for the time being. Enjoy the video.

Originally posted by psmith81992
Don't know what God you're talking about but as far as Judaism is concerned, God is all knowing all powerful.

i'm not talking about Judaism, i'm talking about the God in the Bible...

Originally posted by dyajeep
i'm not talking about Judaism, i'm talking about the God in the Bible... eat

Originally posted by dyajeep
i'm not talking about Judaism, i'm talking about the God in the Bible...

http://blog.theregularguynyc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DUDE-WTF-IS-WRONG-WITH-YOU.jpg

Originally posted by psmith81992
http://blog.theregularguynyc.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/01/DUDE-WTF-IS-WRONG-WITH-YOU.jpg

He also believe that Catholic are not Christians.

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
He also believe that Catholic are not Christians.

that's because you accuse all the wrongdoings of Catholicism to the whole Christianity... the doctrines of Christianity are written in the New Testament of the Bible, and clearly the Catholicism have an entirely different one...

and just to set things straight, here are some:

- infant baptism - baptisms in the time of Jesus and John the Baptist are for adults
- worshipping graven images - this is prohibited both in Old and New Testament
- purgatory/limbo - nowhere found in the Bible, nor mentioned by any apostle
- mass killings (inquisition) - killings are prohibited both in Old and New
- original sin - sins are not inherited according to the Bible

need to say more? using the Catholic doctrine as an excuse to put Christianity in bad light...

to address the post i made about Judaism, it's more on the religion of the Jews according to the Old Testament only... i'm referring to God's character as it was depicted both in the Old and New Testament...

Originally posted by dyajeep
that's because you accuse all the wrongdoings of Catholicism to the whole Christianity... the doctrines of Christianity are written in the New Testament of the Bible, and clearly the Catholicism have an entirely different one...

and just to set things straight, here are some:

- infant baptism - baptisms in the time of Jesus and John the Baptist are for adults
- worshipping graven images - this is prohibited both in Old and New Testament
- purgatory/limbo - nowhere found in the Bible, nor mentioned by any apostle
- mass killings (inquisition) - killings are prohibited both in Old and New
- original sin - sins are not inherited according to the Bible

need to say more? using the Catholic doctrine as an excuse to put Christianity in bad light...

to address the post i made about Judaism, it's more on the religion of the Jews according to the Old Testament only... i'm referring to God's character as it was depicted both in the Old and New Testament...

In the torah, you know that document that was given on Sinai and was seen by every Jew and every nation, God is omniscient.

Originally posted by psmith81992
In the torah, you know that document that was given on Sinai and was seen by every Jew and every nation, God is omniscient.

The Torah? Is that part of the King James Bible?

Originally posted by Shakyamunison
The Torah? Is that part of the King James Bible?

No. It's that little document that came first

Originally posted by psmith81992
No. It's that little document that came first

Well, I don't believe it, if it ant come from the bible.

Originally posted by dyajeep
- infant baptism - baptisms in the time of Jesus and John the Baptist are for adults
- worshipping graven images - this is prohibited both in Old and New Testament
- purgatory/limbo - nowhere found in the Bible, nor mentioned by any apostle
- mass killings (inquisition) - killings are prohibited both in Old and New
- original sin - sins are not inherited according to the Bible

In jewish culture the bar mitszvah is the marker of manhood and it's not linked with our modern concept of adulthood. John very likely baptized people that we would consider kids. The apostles themselves might've been underaged during the life of Jesus. Still not babies, I know, it's just a precision

Purgatory very much only exists because of the doctrine of Original Sin (making it a redundant mention). Original Sin is just a word/rationalization to say that we were cast out from the Garden of Eden because of Adam's actions and not our own, also jewish traditions makes Adam an almost superhuman being, sin explains our diminished grace (of sorts).

The graven images can certainly be seen as a fashion faux-pas.