Why didnt God make us all perfect?
I've heard this alot, and here is my theory:
God wants only those who choose to worship him to be at his side (forced love is anything but)...who would you rather be with your for eternity?
a person you MADE worship you, or a person who could have chosen something else but in the end chose you?
You can blame this on Ego, Jealousy or anything else.
If anyone should be pardoned for his Ego, its God.
If free will exists, foreknowledge is impossible.Let us examine your example. Presuming that free will exists, if you were to document all the choices one made over the course of a year, and went back in time before he made these choices, you would still not know all the choices he is going to make. This is because, if the subject truly has free will, it is possible that he will make different choices then the ones you observed.
If free will exists, the future is not fixed and is therefore, changeable.
Well two things here. Your example still doesnt show that omnipotence excludes the possibility of free will.
But two, nothing should change given everything that lead to your choices remained the same. And God's foreknowledge does not ever limit your ability to make a choice. There is nothing to change because nothing was made.
Originally posted by clickclick
Well two things here. Your example still doesnt show that omnipotence excludes the possibility of free will.But two, nothing should change given everything that lead to your choices remained the same. And God's foreknowledge does not ever limit your ability to make a choice. There is nothing to change because nothing was made.
First, I have illustrated that omnipotence procludes free will. You simply do not accept it because the implication of this is that either God is not omnipotent or that human beings do not have free will.
You acknowledge that the future is the result of choices that have not yet been made in the statement, "There is nothing to change because nothing was made," yet you insist that foreknowledge is still possible.
If the future is the result of choices that have not yet been made, then the future cannot be known until these choices have been made. For if one truly has free will, it is possible for him to choose differently than it is known how he will choose, even if the circumnstances that lead to his choices remains the same.
Essentially, if God knows what one will do before he does it, he must do what God knows he will do, otherwise, God would be wrong. But if one truly has free will, it should be possible for him to do the opposite of what God knows he will do, otherwise, he is not truly free.
First, I have illustrated that omnipotence procludes free will. You simply do not accept it because the implication of this is that either God is not omnipotent or that human beings do not have free will.You acknowledge that the future is the result of choices that have not yet been made in the statement, "There is nothing to change because nothing was made," yet you insist that foreknowledge is still possible.
If the future is the result of choices that have not yet been made, then the future cannot be known until these choices have been made. For if one truly has free will, it is possible for him to choose differently than it is known how he will choose, even if the circumnstances that lead to his choices remains the same.
Essentially, if God knows what one will do before he does it, he must do what God knows he will do, otherwise, God would be wrong. But if one truly has free will, it should be possible for him to do the opposite of what God knows he will do, otherwise, he is not truly free.
You are funny. I dont agree with you because you are wrong, not because it offends some line of thought. Your opinion is that one could technically act differently in the same situation but I disagree that they would. There is no reason for everything to not play out exactly the same unless new influences get added, regardless of the potential for it. The potential was always there.
Choosing has nothing to do with foreknowledge. Does the foreknowledge detract from the ability to choose? No. That is merely what you want to purport that foreknowledge does but not its actuality. Rather, the inevitability is that you WILL MAKE A CHOICE. At that, there MUST be a decision and whatever that is, is known.
He/she is not be doing what God wants them to do, that WOULD be affecting free will. What they are doing is making whatever decision they would like and God knows of it. The opposite of that decision was possible but THEY choose it not. Not under some force required to foreknowledge but by their own will.
You insist that one must be able to "fake out God" to have free will but that is not a logical conclusion.
Originally posted by clickclick
You are funny. I dont agree with you because you are wrong, not because it offends some line of thought.
I find it interesting that for being so incorrect, you have been unable to prove me so as of yet. It would seem that you would like to have the cake that is your omniscient God, and eat it too, along with the concept that human beings have free will.
Originally posted by clickclick
Your opinion is that one could technically act differently in the same situation but I disagree that they would. There is no reason for everything to not play out exactly the same unless new influences get added, regardless of the potential for it. The potential was always there.
The existence of free will is the reason one could choose differently regardless of the influences at play.
Originally posted by clickclick
Choosing has nothing to do with foreknowledge. Does the foreknowledge detract from the ability to choose? No. That is merely what you want to purport that foreknowledge does but not its actuality. Rather, the inevitability is that you WILL MAKE A CHOICE. At that, there MUST be a decision and whatever that is, is known.
For God to have foreknowledge, the future must be predetermined. If the future is predetermined, one is not truly making free choices, but is simply living them out.
Originally posted by clickclick
He/she is not be doing what God wants them to do, that WOULD be affecting free will. What they are doing is making whatever decision they would like and God knows of it. The opposite of that decision was possible but THEY choose it not. Not under some force required to foreknowledge but by their own will.
No one is asserting that if God is omniscient, one must do what God wants him to do but rather what God knows he will do. In this instance, one has the appearance of free will but truly does not.
Originally posted by clickclick
You insist that one must be able to "fake out God" to have free will but that is not a logical conclusion.
It is the nature of free will to be unpredictable. It is the nature of omniscience to know all things. Logic dictates that it is impossible for one to know all things when somethings are unknowable. Therefore, one or both of these things must be non-existent.
Originally posted by Adam_PoE
I find it interesting that for being so incorrect, you have been unable to prove me so as of yet. It would seem that you would like to have the cake that is your omniscient God, and eat it too, along with the concept that human beings have free will.The existence of free will [b]is
the reason one could choose differently regardless of the influences at play.For God to have foreknowledge, the future must be predetermined. If the future is predetermined, one is not truly making free choices, but is simply living them out.
No one is asserting that if God is omniscient, one must do what God wants him to do but rather what God knows he will do. In this instance, one has the appearance of free will but truly does not.
It is the nature of free will to be unpredictable. It is the nature of omniscience to know all things. Logic dictates that it is impossible for one to know all things when somethings are unknowable. Therefore, one or both of these things must be non-existent. [/B]
You are saying that the existence of free will is the reason that one COULD choose differently. I dont disagree but that does not mean they would. Without new outside influences, everything that lead to decisions being made should remain the same and thus too the decisions.
Secondly, you are saying that God's foreknowledge eliminates free will. But, is it foreknowledge that makes the decisions? If not, who/what is it that is making the decisions? The opposite of free will is forced actions. If god is not forcing the actions of somebody, then a problem does not exist in actuality. Foreknowledge does not eliminate the ablity to choose. You can argue that it means that they have to choose that one thing but that isnt correct. It means that they will (by their own free will) choose that thing.
Logic would dictate that it wouldnt be possible for a regular person to know all things but you cant effectively make that argument against something supernatural.
Originally posted by clickclick
Without new outside influences, everything that lead to decisions being made should remain the same and thus too the decisions.
The decisions would remain the same if they were the result of causal chains and not free will.
Originally posted by clickclick
Foreknowledge does not eliminate the ablity to choose. You can argue that it means that they have to choose that one thing but that isnt correct. It means that they will (by their own free will) choose that thing.
I never stated that free will eliminates the ability to choose but the ability to freely choose. The existence of foreknowledge means that one must make the choice it is known he will make. Thus, the freedom to choose appears to the subject as free will but it fundamentally is not.
Originally posted by clickclick
Logic would dictate that it wouldnt be possible for a regular person to know all things but you cant effectively make that argument against something supernatural.
It is a good thing I am not making that argument. My argument is that it is impossible for one, in this instance God, to know all things when somethings are indeed impossible to know. This is a contradiction, therefore, one or both of these things i.e. omniscience and free will, must not exist.
My argument is that it is impossible for one, in this instance God, to know all things when somethings are indeed impossible to know. This is a contradiction, therefore, one or both of these things i.e. omniscience and free will, must not exist.I never stated that free will eliminates the ability to choose but the ability to freely choose. The existence of foreknowledge means that one must make the choice it is known he will make. Thus, the freedom to choose appears to the subject as free will but it fundamentally is not.
The question im asking you though is if it isnt God making those choice and it isnt foreknowledge, then who is it?
You are saying that one is confined to making a certain choice because of foreknowledge but that clearly does not follow.
Originally posted by clickclick
The question im asking you though is if it isnt God making those choice and it isnt foreknowledge, then who is it?You are saying that one is confined to making a certain choice because of foreknowledge but that clearly does not follow.
For foreknowledge to be possible, the future must be fixed and unchangeable. Therefore, it is the existence of foreknowledge that limits freedom of choice.
In my previous example, if one truly had free will, he could choose to put on a different color of socks than it is known he will put on, or he could choose to wear one black sock and one white sock, or he could choose to wear no socks at all, or he could choose any number of other things. But the existence of foreknowledge limits his possible choices to the one choice it is determined he will make.
Someone once said the "true challenge of creation lies not in the act of creation itself, but rather controlling what is created". It really does look like humanity has free will, but I still don't see why God, if he exists, couldn't manage creation in a different way so as to actual have control and real rules, hehehe, I actually think I would sacrifice a bit of free will if the world was a better place, if there wasn't quiet as much evil. More happiness maybe. After all, even with civilisations you have rules, laws, penalties. Does this mean one is truly free? No, some freedom is sacrificed for the greater good, the other possibility being anarchy. Now I would admire God for making us free, but really he also has a lot to answer for.
For foreknowledge to be possible, the future must be fixed and unchangeable. Therefore, it is the existence of foreknowledge that limits freedom of choice.In my previous example, if one truly had free will, he could choose to put on a different color of socks than it is known he will put on, or he could choose to wear one black sock and one white sock, or he could choose to wear no socks at all, or he could choose any number of other things. But the existence of foreknowledge limits his possible choices to the one choice it is determined he will make.
Does foreknowledge mean that they didnt have a choice or is it the knowledge of the inevitable choice.
Like ive asked though, if it is set in stone then originally something selected that choice. So who was it?
On the subject of your example. How was it that they couldnt put on a different pair of socks? Foreknowledge does not dictate what they do, it knows of it. THe person goes about their buisness, comes to a decision on their own and thats that.
Who determined that choice?
Originally posted by clickclick
Does foreknowledge mean that they didnt have a choice or is it the knowledge of the inevitable choice.
The existence of free will means that no choice is inevitable.
Originally posted by clickclick
Like ive asked though, if it is set in stone then originally something selected that choice. So who was it?
As I have stated already, if free will exists, nothing is set in stone.
Originally posted by clickclick
On the subject of your example. How was it that they couldnt put on a different pair of socks? Foreknowledge does not dictate what they do, it knows of it. The person goes about their buisness, comes to a decision on their own and thats that.Who determined that choice?
The existence of foreknowledge prevented him from putting on a different pair of socks, for he had to put on the pair that it was known he would put on. The existence of foreknowledge did not dictate his choice, it predetermined it, therefore it is not really a free choice at all.
The existence of free will means that no choice is inevitable.As I have stated already, if free will exists, nothing is set in stone.
The existence of foreknowledge prevented him from putting on a different pair of socks, for he had to put on the pair that it was known he would put on. The existence of foreknowledge did not dictate his choice, it predetermined it, therefore it is not really a free choice at all.
Not doing either is a choice and if there was no choice period then there is no issue. Nobodies choices are set in stone. You have the ability to do what you choose. Just because you dont know it yet does not mean that one could not know it. If one were to know all, he knows you better than you know yourself, he knows past present and future. So does this mean that..... Your choices were set in stone? No. Just that your choices are known.
The existence of foreknowledge did not prevent it. He choose a pair.
Is the choice in between what foreknowledge and a pair of socks or in between two pairs of socks?
Who would be predetermining these choices?
Originally posted by clickclick
Not doing either is a choice and if there was no choice period then there is no issue. Nobodies choices are set in stone. You have the ability to do what you choose. Just because you dont know it yet does not mean that one could not know it. If one were to know all, he knows you better than you know yourself, he knows past present and future. So does this mean that..... Your choices were set in stone? No. Just that your choices are known.The existence of foreknowledge did not prevent it. He choose a pair.
Is the choice in between what foreknowledge and a pair of socks or in between two pairs of socks?Who would be predetermining these choices?
If no one's choices are set in stone, then foreknowledge is impossible.
It is not an issue of who is predeterming one's choices but rather that one's choices are predetermined.
If no one's choices are set in stone, then foreknowledge is impossible.It is not an issue of who is predeterming one's choices but rather that one's choices are predetermined.
One would need to in order for their to be free will.
You could walk down the street or not, pick up a phone or not etc. The ability to do the opposite is there, the foreknowledge is what you end up doing. Free will is the ability to make a choice, foreknowledge is knowing which choice you make. The ability TO do something and ending up doing soemthing are not the same thing.
The question of where the choices come from is important.
Originally posted by clickclick
One would need to in order for their to be free will.You could walk down the street or not, pick up a phone or not etc. The ability to do the opposite is there, the foreknowledge is what you end up doing. Free will is the ability to make a choice, foreknowledge is knowing which choice you make. The ability TO do something and ending up doing soemthing are not the same thing.
The question of where the choices come from is important.
Therein lies the point; If free will exists, what one ends up doing cannot be known until after he does it.
Re: If god loves everybody equally....
Originally posted by debbie264
Why do some people go to hell,and some to heaven?Doesn't god say he loves and treats everbody equally,whether he's a theif or holy man.So how come he sends people to hell/heaven??
And some people are born into bad environments,and forced to hate and despise god ,while some are born into healthy loving environments,and grow up learning to love god.Why doesn't he give everybody an equal chance?Is that even a philosophical question?
of course, that is only one definition of god. it may/may not be the right one.....i don't know
what kind of knowlege do you beleive god has? contingent or infinate?