Originally posted by riv6672
^^^Agreed; i dont give any thought to the random ants i step on during the day.
You also probably don't give any thought to if the ants commit murder or adultery and you don't try to hand down rules to them or make them worship you either.
You certainly don't care what an ant thinks or feels, correct? Did you know some ants practice slavery?
Originally posted by StigmaAgreed.
Just to chime in, but negatives can be proven. It's a common misconception it is somehow impossible.For example, logical negative: married bachelors do not exist. We can prove that.
Or empirical negative: ther are no dinosaurs living in Europe in this day and age. We can prove that.
Originally posted by StigmaI was simplifying. Personally, I think agnosticism is the most honest standpoint.
Which is not the case at all. It leaves us with agnosticism at best.Also, philosophical and logical claims constitute proof too. And there is a number of premises that show belief in God is supported.
Moreover, one could say that the existence of reality itself is a proof enough that a Superior Being exists (not necessarily Christian God) aka an argument from the origins of the universe.
Regarding ontological arguments (if that's what you mean), here I disagree. For me, proof means a direct experience of a phenomenon, and an ontological argument grants only a direct experience of the ontological argument. Its conclusion infers a transcendent reality, but it is not the direct experience of one. Same reason I wouldn't consider the sudden appearance of a flying mountain orbited by golden humanoids proof of *God*. But it certainly would be empirical proof of a flying mountain with golden humanoids.
If we are defining *God* as a spiritual/transcendent being, then sensory information or logical reasoning can hint of such being, but no more than that.
Originally posted by NewGuy01
This never made any sense. If there is such a thing as free will, then there is no such thing as an all-powerful god, and vice versa.
Consider an all-powerful god that allows man to be free. That is to say, man can act freely but only because God chooses not to intervene with his freedom. There's no contradiction in that concept.
Originally posted by Astner
That depends on how you define free will and all-powerful. You can certainly define them to be contradictory but you can also define them to be contingent.Consider an all-powerful god that allows man to be free. That is to say, man can act freely but only because God chooses not to intervene with his freedom. There's no contradiction in that concept.
Originally posted by Astner
Consider an all-powerful god that allows man to be free. That is to say, man can act freely but only because God chooses not to intervene with his freedom. There's no contradiction in that concept.
So long as that God created that man, those choices are still predefined. It's not as if an omniscient being can un-know the consequences of his actions by covering his eyes; if he creates _____ to be a certain way, those personality traits will lead _____ to make choice _____ at time _____. It's not a simple matter of intervention, it's a matter of the nature of boundless power. If God knows every choice you will make before you make it, then what does free will even mean? In the end, you are still exactly what you were created to be, because God cannot ever be mistaken.
Originally posted by NewGuy01What about the idea that God knows every choice you could possibly make, and where those choices will lead if taken, rather than it being one set path based on the way you have been created?
So long as that God created that man, those choices are still predefined. It's not as if an omniscient being can un-know the consequences of his actions by covering his eyes; if he creates _____ to be a certain way, those personality traits will lead _____ to make choice _____ at time _____. It's not a simple matter of intervention, it's a matter of the nature of boundless power. If God knows every choice you will make before you make it, then what does free will even mean? In the end, you are still exactly what you were created to be, because God cannot ever be mistaken.
Originally posted by Scribble
What about the idea that God knows every choice you could possibly make, and where those choices will lead if taken, rather than it being one set path based on the way you have been created?
Originally posted by NewGuy01
So long as that God created that man, those choices are still predefined. It's not as if an omniscient being can un-know the consequences of his actions by covering his eyes; if he creates _____ to be a certain way, those personality traits will lead _____ to make choice _____ at time _____. It's not a simple matter of intervention, it's a matter of the nature of boundless power. If God knows every choice you will make before you make it, then what does free will even mean? In the end, you are still exactly what you were created to be, because God cannot ever be mistaken.
But to answer your question, it depends on the definitions you're using. You seem to be using a definition congruent to "free will is the ability to thwart predestination," in which case it is a contradiction. But it's not a particularly good definition to use in the topic of free will versus predestination since it is definitionally true.
That's why most people don't consider conditioning to negate free will. A father offering his child a choice between ice cream and a salad—knowing full well that the child will pick the ice cream—does not invalidate the child's choice.
Then we're back where we started. If conditioning doesn't negate free will, then why were we not made inherently good natured creatures to prevent sin, if that is what God abhors? If God is omni-benevolent, then why create souls who are predestined to fail and suffer for eternity? Because it would be boring if everyone were aligned?
Originally posted by AstnerHe knows everything there is to know – those choices have not been made yet, but he will not be surprised by any of them since he knows where they all lead. That seems fairly straightforward to me.
Then God would only know everything except the choices you'd make.
Originally posted by NewGuy01I don't think God knew what he was getting into with us, tbh. He quickly realised we were quite prone to failure, but continued to try and guide us to the right path. By putting free will in, he opened us up to a vast new sea of possibilities, and again, he knows all of the possibilities, but he doesn't know which ones we will follow until we get there. He sent us Jesus so that we would have a model human to base ourselves off of: if we did the one simple thing that sums up the New Testament, i.e. being like Jesus (caring, forgiving, not lustful, and willing to sacrifice oneself for the good of humanity), then we would have no trouble getting into heaven.
Then we're back where we started. If conditioning doesn't negate free will, then why were we not made inherently good natured creatures to prevent sin, if that is what God abhors? If God is omni-benevolent, then why create souls who are predestined to fail and suffer for eternity? Because it would be boring if everyone were aligned?
Plus, we can be like Jesus and still utilise our free will to show our unique personalities, so it's not like following the example of Jesus is limiting. In fact, it opens up new possibilities for the good that you can achieve as a person.
As a human, you're overstating what all-powerful and all-knowing really means. Earth is meaningless in comparison to the eternity of Heaven, so when you get to the entrance of Heaven, God makes the decision to let you in or cast you down, therefore he is all-powerful (all-powerful doesn't necessarily imply an interventionist God), and likewise, when you get to the entrance, he will base this on every single detail of your life, thus he is all-knowing.
But you see that isn't what most Christians believe. They don't believe God is all powerful just because he gets to ultimately decide your fate. They literally think he has limitless super powers. You've relegated him to a guy whose entire existence boils down to merely deciding: up or down. Most Christians would be against that outlook.