Free Will and Predestination

Off Topic
21

[quote]Thantophobia wrote:
As an atheist I realize this thread is not meant for me - but the topic does interest me. I do not believe in free will - but I do not believe that we are following a “script” either. Basically, for free will to exist, at some point the elementary particles composing your brain have to cease following the laws of physics - they must respond to some external force (let’s call it a soul) rather than to gravity, electromagnetic forces, and the like.

There is no reason to believe this - and the sense of free will that we experience is actually far more specious than we like to think. When you read this post - try to isolate the exact moment that you choose what to do with it - whether to respond, scroll down, or Ctrl+Tab back to redtube. You won’t be able to. [/quote]

Read Lucretius lately?

By the way, thats the symptom of consciousness, that one has to be conscious of one thing at a time and it is the compromised moment itself which is undefinable. It’s why its possible that some things cannot exist, e.g. WVO Quine.

22

dam! i thought this said “free Wii”

23

[quote]colleend78 wrote:
When life gets confusing and hard I try to remember that I am a spiritual being on a human journey - where we are now is not going to last for forever and we are all destined for much greater things if we choose the right. :)[/quote]

It’s a good thing that when your life gets confusing and hard you remember that you are a spiritual being on a human journey. God forbid you feed the thousands of dieing children every day and saving the poor.

It’s funny how everyone thinks god has a plan for them, where is the plan of a 4 year old dieing because he can’t find water? If God can perform miracles by curing cancer on certain victims, he can’t make it rain a little?

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]
Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]
Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]

You think if the child really really believes that he will find water in a desert it will appear to him? You are right, maybe he just din’t believe enough and thought death was a better alternative.

What makes you so special in gods plan other then the fact that you were born in a country where if you were starving you would be fed, and if you were thirsty you would be given a drink?

24

Religion is not about logic… That’s the point.

But even using logic, you still have free will. God just knows what you will freely choose long before hand, if you use the god is omnipetent qualification. He does not seek to be a dictator and make you choose.

If you have a child you will keep him out of danger to the best of your ability, but at some point you will resolve to let him suffer the ups and downs of life. The apple did not completely destroy life, it was just a bruise to let humanity experience life. With the knowledge of sadness, you also get the knowledge of happiness, anger and other emotions.

25

[quote]clip11 wrote:
Fishsticks wrote:
Logic and sensibility doesn’t blend well with religion. A 8 year old could point out a fundamental logical problem after 5 mins reading the bible.

Of course, you can always respond to these problems with some logical acrobatics combined with careful cherry picking of what’s actually valid and not valid in the bible, in that particular case so it can seemingly back up your what you are saying.

Thats what im having a problem with, it doesnt line up with a logical thought pattern…like for instance, a talking snake! Or the whole Red Sea being parted…[/quote]

Man did not always talk english and look through the eyes of an american.
Just as some languages known to use clicks, communication is whatever you choose to get your point across.

15 gazillioin years ago, a snake hissing at you can be considered talking. Technically it’s telling you if you don’t back the fuck up it will kick your ass.

Parting the red sea can easily be seen as an earthquake or some other calamity. The bible is a script of translation of translation of translation, the principals are more relevant than the word for word translations.

26

[quote]Thantophobia wrote:
As an atheist I realize this thread is not meant for me - but the topic does interest me. I do not believe in free will - but I do not believe that we are following a “script” either. Basically, for free will to exist, at some point the elementary particles composing your brain have to cease following the laws of physics - they must respond to some external force (let’s call it a soul) rather than to gravity, electromagnetic forces, and the like.

There is no reason to believe this - and the sense of free will that we experience is actually far more specious than we like to think. When you read this post - try to isolate the exact moment that you choose what to do with it - whether to respond, scroll down, or Ctrl+Tab back to redtube. You won’t be able to. [/quote]

Being able to pinpoint the exact moment you make a decision is irrelevant as this reply shows that at some point I decided to reply (based on its existence).

So the point remains, am I responsible for the decision to reply or am I not? These are the only 2 logical answers as something either is or isn’t, there isn’t a third option.

I do believe in free will, however there is no way that I could conclusively prove that this opinion isn’t merely an illusion.

That said, you haven’t actually stated what you DO believe in so if you could expand on that we could discuss it further.

27

i dont believe in free will. instead i think we have a choice.

free will to me seems like i should be able to do whatever i want and choose my own consequences. have my cake and eat it too, ya know?

my choice that i am actually given is that i can do what i want and suffer those consequences or do what i am supposed to and suffer those consequences.

God left a tree for man to make a choice. a choice to love and fear Him, or a choice to turn away from Him and do whatever we wanted to do.

so to use your parenting analogy, if you were able to absolutely control your child, make sure nothing bad ever happened to them, would you do it at the expense of them not being able to think for themselves? or would you rather give them instruction and hear them tell you, “hey you were right. thanks for your advice, i love you, yadda yadda”?

28

[quote]IQ wrote:
Thantophobia wrote:
As an atheist I realize this thread is not meant for me - but the topic does interest me. I do not believe in free will - but I do not believe that we are following a “script” either. Basically, for free will to exist, at some point the elementary particles composing your brain have to cease following the laws of physics - they must respond to some external force (let’s call it a soul) rather than to gravity, electromagnetic forces, and the like.

There is no reason to believe this - and the sense of free will that we experience is actually far more specious than we like to think. When you read this post - try to isolate the exact moment that you choose what to do with it - whether to respond, scroll down, or Ctrl+Tab back to redtube. You won’t be able to.

Being able to pinpoint the exact moment you make a decision is irrelevant as this reply shows that at some point I decided to reply (based on its existence).

So the point remains, am I responsible for the decision to reply or am I not? These are the only 2 logical answers as something either is or isn’t, there isn’t a third option.

I do believe in free will, however there is no way that I could conclusively prove that this opinion isn’t merely an illusion.

That said, you haven’t actually stated what you DO believe in so if you could expand on that we could discuss it further.[/quote]

It seems to me that at this point we have reached a problem primarily with language. The existence of your post proves nothing more than that you posted it. It does not follow that because it exists, and you are aware of creating it, that you there was a decision to create it, at least not in the sense of the word “decision” relevant to free will. In order for free will to exist, your consciousness must be in some way influecing the matter of your body in an extraphysical (supernatural has far too many negative connotations) way. Furthermore, this extraphysical influence must be a “choice” - a selection of one course of action over another. Now, if you are not conscious of the actual choice - or decision - then “you” have not made it. It is not enough for the action to have occured - your consciousness must have exerted some influence to cause it to occur. If you are not conscious of the actual choice - then whatever extraphysical conscious event you want to call free will could not have been the prime mover.

Secondly, I have no belief about free will. That is not the same as believing it doesn’t exist - it merely is not an input into my modeling of the world, much like the existence of an invisible grape on my plate is not an input. My view of the world is materialistic - I believe in what there is reason to believe in, and that which there is no reason to believe in does not affect my beliefs. So when you say that I must state what I believe in on this topic - I can give no answer. My ability to discuss free will is limited to looking at the arguments of others - as it does not currently exist in my worldview. If you’re asking what I believe about the functioning of the brain or the mind, I would tell you to read what neuroscientists write - they are more qualified than me. If you’re asking me about what I believe on a specific topic of how the brain works - you’re haven’t communicated your question to me, so I can’t answer it.

29

Clip, you ask some very logical questions in your post above. I want to try and answer those questions for
you, simply because they were some of the very same questions I once wrestled with.

I want to tell a few things about myself before I start, This is not to build myself up in form or fashion, but I just want to give you an idea of where I’m coming from when I attempt to answer your questions. I was once an agnostic and now I’m a Christian. I’m in seminary working on a masters in divinity and I’m also assistant youth pastor at my church. So when I answer, that answer is coming from a Christian worldview.

This answer will be long, because matters as important as these do not merit an off the cuff answer. I believe this question is very important to you, so I’m going to speak as though I were talking directly to you. With that being said, let’s dive in.

Man, created in Godâ??s image, possesses a mind, a heart, and a will. The mind, or intellect, allows him to think rationally, not by sheer instinct like an animal. The heart, or emotion, enables him to feel, unlike a robot or machine, human experience. The will, or volition, enables him to make decisions and choices that have moral consequences. It is his capacity for action, a capacity that allows him to choose this over that and those instead of these.

In his unfallen state, man was good and very good. The fall, however, affected every part of manâ??s being. Manâ??s mind, by virtue of his fallen nature was darkened, incapable of understanding the things of the Spirit of God (Ephesians 4:18; 1 Corinthians 2:14). Further, his emotions are now deceptive and untrustworthy (Jeremiah 17:9) and his will, that is, his ability to choose good over evil and right over wrong, is bound.

So, is man free? If by the word “free” one means that people have the ability to make certain choices on their own (i.e. free from compulsion, force, or coercion), then the answer is “yes.” For example, people have the ability to choose to go to the store or stay home, to buy a newspaper or not, to eat beef or to eat fish, etc.; such choices are within the natural capacity of human beings. People are free to act according to their nature.

If by the word “free”, however, one means free without any limitation, then the answer is “no.” People are not free to act contrary to their nature. I cannot choose to fly. Yes, I can choose to travel by airplane, but I cannot choose to sprout wings or become a bird. My will, you see, is not entirely free. It is bound by the limits of my nature. We do not have the freedom to be anything we are not.

The issue of free-will and predestination is one that has raised its head in every generation.Do we exercise choice, or has everything already been decided? Did you choose to read this post, or has God already determined that you will… or won’t?

The problem with the question as it is presented is that it is not nearly difficult enough. In order to truly appreciate the magnitude of what we are discussing, we must first deal with an even greater question. And it is this: Imagine if I were able to stop time right now. What would you be thinking? What would you be feeling? The answer is nothing.

In the absence of time, we cannot think or feel or do. Everything is frozen. In the absence of sufficient time we cannot think things through. In the absence of time altogether, however, we cannot even begin to think, as there is literally no time to think in.

We live and have our existence in a space-time continuum. We “belong to eternity stranded in time,” observes Michael Card.(1) This also means that before God created there was no time. Time is not co-eternal with God. But we also know that God was a thinking, feeling, doing Being even before He created. Can you imagine a Being who is able to think in the absence of time? Of course not, but the God we worship not only exists outside of time, He can think and act in the absence of time.

Just reading about this is enough to make us feel overwhelmed. And so it should. Whenever we think about the person of God, we should rightly feel that we have come across something truly awesome. And maybe this is part of the problem. We are not faced with a logical contradiction here. Rather, we are faced with the reality of what it means for God to exist, for God to be God.

You and I are only able to think in time, and thus, God confronts us with choice: “Choose this day whom you will serve,” “choose life” and so on (Joshua 24:15; Deuteronomy 30:19). But God, outside of time, sees all of history stretched out before Him. The problem comes, therefore, when we confine God within time. But this needn’t be the case. A proper understanding of the tension drives us back both to God’s divine nature and to our knees, acknowledging how wonderful He is.

This understanding also helps us with the issue of eternal life. Many people find the idea of eternity frightening. What will we be doing for all of that time? Once again, our dilemma arises because we are captive both to the passage of time and too small a view of who God actually is. People also then ask: if God truly knows all things, then why did He create knowing that we would experience pain in a fallen world?

But we know that God did not create the world and then think of a plan to rescue it. In the book of Revelation, we are told that the Lamb was slain before the foundations of the world were laid. This does not mean that the crucifixion took place in our space-time history before creation (there was no space-history for it to take place in).

What it does mean is that even before God created, God also knew the price it would cost Him–the suffering of his own Son–to redeem his creation and save us. God didn’t count that cost too great–and hence we sing of God’s amazing grace.

Let me conclude with the following. People who assert that everything comes down to choice and that the future is full of possibilities believe that they have a basis for hope, but acknowledge that the future is unknown. The French existentialists were famous for this, and miserable because of it.

For all their desire for hope, when their open future was realized, it always disappointed. In this sense, hope becomes wishful thinking when it has no secure future. On the other hand, fatalists believe they have a future, but no hope. Nothing is or can be done, for all has been determined.

But on the contrary, God is big enough to be able to say, “I know the plans I have for you… plans to prosper you and not to harm you, plans to give you hope and a future” (Jeremiah 29:11). There is no hope without a secure future, and the future is frightening in the absence of hope. Only God is big enough to bring these two things together–hope and a future–and this is what He has done for us.

If you wish you can listen to the podcast of world renowed Christian apologist Ravi Zacharias posted below.

This podcast, is in response to the question, “How can man have free will while God is sovereign?”
http://htod.cdncon.com/o2/rzimht/MP3/JT/JTCD171-4.mp3

This podcast, is in response to the question, “How can man be free if God knows what we are going to do?”
http://htod.cdncon.com/o2/rzimht/MP3/JT/JTFLQA-2.mp3

This podcast, is in response to the question, "How can the sovereignty of God and man’s free will coexist?
http://htod.cdncon.com/o2/rzimht/MP3/JT/JTWlooQA-3.mp3

These podcast only last about 15 minutes so they make for quick easy listening.

Thanks is extended to anyone one who took time out of their day and read this “book” that I wrote.

Test

30

[quote]LiveFromThe781 wrote:

scientists today have discovered the origins of the universe;[/quote]

Really? They discovered what caused the Big Bang as well as what existed before that? I must have been on vacation when that press conference was held because I miss all the big news when I’m on vacation.

DB

31

I would like to point out to those “atheists” (read anti-Christians) that arguing against the bible and arguing against god are 2 different things. Get the “the bible is stupid” stuff out of this thread it isn’t the place. There is plenty of logic that can lead you on the positive side of a query into god, but like I said this isn’t the thread.

I do have some thoughts on the subject though.

First: Edit: I was beaten to this point.

I think the concept of saying god knows what WILL happen, and therefore binding him to our perspective of “time” is inherently flawed.

If you go study quantum you’ll find out our traditional concept of time (and space) is very wrong anyway. They are both entirely relative concepts. If you actually apply the principals of it, being every where (read in every momentum frame) and being every time are in fact the same thing. If you accept that he is, in fact, everywhere, he is therefore also everywhen (I just made that word up).

I propose that he doesn’t know what will happen, he is already at the time and place where it does, and will, and did happen. To an Omnipresent being, all space and all time are one thing.

So the question would be is it predestination for him to already be chronologically passed our decisions?

I don’t think time really makes any sense in philosophical discussions like this. It’s good for trying to catch the buss, not for trying to identify the meaning of life.
(this all kinda plays into the way I feel about most man-invented measures, they work great for engineering, but undermine themselves when dealing with absolutes. Time and space are not “real” the way we think of them and can’t be applied to absolute concepts like god)

Second:
To the people that think that we are an ongoing reaction that is bound to its outcome the way a dropped ball is bound to fall, you are wrong. This is to the people that believe given all the scientific inputs and variables, measured with exact measurements, the outcome of a situation can be exactly predicted. Quantum once again debates this. Even given a specific perspective on events to base your measurements off of, systems are at their core inherently unknown. The uncertainty principal states that it is impossible to ever know all variables pertaining to a system, outside of the ability to measure.

The uncertainty principal to me suggests a scientific form of free will of all systems, in the fact that exact specifications can never be known or predicted.

32

Two points - A. Yes, quantum mechanics suggests an inherent randomness AT THE QUANTUM LEVEL. Even given this randomness, higher level systems can be modeled with close to 100% accuracy. The brain’s functional units are far far too large to be affected by quantum level randomness with any regularity. Think about what you just argued - I said that the particles in the brain are subject to the same rules as other particles. You claimed that there are no rules.

So you think then that we cannot accurately model anything - that we’re just flat out wrong about everything we claim to know of the universe? Or do you think that free will is limited to operating at the quantum level? If you’re claiming the first, you’ve asserted a useless proposition - a truly random universe is inherently unknowable - you have no basis for thinking or doing anything. If you’re claiming the second - that’s not really free will. We can model higher level systems with great accuracy - so in your argument free will would only affect the universe in minute, unmeasurable levels, certainly not anything close to the function of the brain.

and B. It doesn’t suggest free will at all. It suggests randomness. There’s a huge difference.

33

[quote]Thantophobia wrote:

It seems to me that at this point we have reached a problem primarily with language. The existence of your post proves nothing more than that you posted it. It does not follow that because it exists, and you are aware of creating it, that you there was a decision to create it, at least not in the sense of the word “decision” relevant to free will. In order for free will to exist, your consciousness must be in some way influecing the matter of your body in an extraphysical (supernatural has far too many negative connotations) way. Furthermore, this extraphysical influence must be a “choice” - a selection of one course of action over another. Now, if you are not conscious of the actual choice - or decision - then “you” have not made it. It is not enough for the action to have occured - your consciousness must have exerted some influence to cause it to occur. If you are not conscious of the actual choice - then whatever extraphysical conscious event you want to call free will could not have been the prime mover.[/quote]

I can assure you that I made a conscious “choice” to respond (as opposed to not responding) therefore using your definition, free will does indeed exist and I have used it.

Did you make a conscious choice to respond to me or did you click back into this thread to find that you had unconsciously replied?

[quote]

Secondly, I have no belief about free will. That is not the same as believing it doesn’t exist - it merely is not an input into my modeling of the world, much like the existence of an invisible grape on my plate is not an input. My view of the world is materialistic - I believe in what there is reason to believe in, and that which there is no reason to believe in does not affect my beliefs. So when you say that I must state what I believe in on this topic - I can give no answer. My ability to discuss free will is limited to looking at the arguments of others - as it does not currently exist in my worldview. If you’re asking what I believe about the functioning of the brain or the mind, I would tell you to read what neuroscientists write - they are more qualified than me. If you’re asking me about what I believe on a specific topic of how the brain works - you’re haven’t communicated your question to me, so I can’t answer it. [/quote]

When considering a concept you can either accept it or not (“I don’t know” would fall into the non-acceptance category), to have no opinion/belief at all is either a sign of ignorance or intellectual cowardice.

34

[quote]Thantophobia wrote:
Two points - A. Yes, quantum mechanics suggests an inherent randomness AT THE QUANTUM LEVEL. Even given this randomness, higher level systems can be modeled with close to 100% accuracy. The brain’s functional units are far far too large to be affected by quantum level randomness with any regularity. Think about what you just argued - I said that the particles in the brain are subject to the same rules as other particles. You claimed that there are no rules.

So you think then that we cannot accurately model anything - that we’re just flat out wrong about everything we claim to know of the universe? Or do you think that free will is limited to operating at the quantum level? If you’re claiming the first, you’ve asserted a useless proposition - a truly random universe is inherently unknowable - you have no basis for thinking or doing anything. If you’re claiming the second - that’s not really free will. We can model higher level systems with great accuracy - so in your argument free will would only affect the universe in minute, unmeasurable levels, certainly not anything close to the function of the brain.

and B. It doesn’t suggest free will at all. It suggests randomness. There’s a huge difference.
[/quote]

Good points. Just for the record, I’m not claiming to have or be showing an answer, just adding points for discussion.

Yes, quantum is only really feasible at a quantum level. However, all thing are made of quantum matter. It is the tenet of quantum that in fact ALL Matter travels as waves. (classical physics is wrong)

If we can agree that the quantum rules due apply to all matter (not proven objects of any reasonable mass’s uncertainty becomes immeasurable) I follow to my next point.

You seem to think that adding layers of complexity to the system allows us to estimate better (yes all calculations are estimation and based on the measurer’s perspective), which is inherently wrong. Dynamic systems simply do not behave this way. In fact the more you multiply the randomness of a simple system (when quantifying more complex ones) the larger the randomness of the higher order system. In a dynamic situation, the smallest variations in initial conditions drastically affect outcome (chaos theory). Everything is affected by the physical properties of atomic level particle. I would go as far as to say it’s what we are.

Think about it. Say a lego piece has X variance in each dimension and you build a house out of lego pieces. The variance in lengths will be multiples of X, areas squared, volume cubed, and on top of that you throw in time (dynamics) and it’s orders of magnitude.

The thought and choice process of the brain is so complex, no one can ever truly have a grasp of the actual physics at play. Divergence of a dynamic system IS THE RULE. If you are allowing any variance in scientific calculation, predestination is not possible in the religion of science (even if options are bounded; you have to remember that bounded and discrete are 2 different things, in a bounded possibility there are still infinite options). And apparently all scientific calculations have bounded error inherent.

Yes this is “bounded” free will. But all of it is, unless you are saying to truly have free will I would have to be capable of doing absolutely anything. I cannot float away into space, therefore there is no free will of that type. I don’t think anyone can argue that all physical systems are bound to at least some degree.

EX:
I come to a fork in the road. Free will allows me to choose left or right, not up or down. Physical laws limit possibilities to 2 outcomes. That doesn’t mean there is no free will and that’s a discrete set even.

Lastly, yes, I do agree that randomness and free will are different concepts. They are however still related. Randomness scientifically allows for the notion of free will (and in my opinion suggests it).

Inherent (built-in) randomness also throws a wrench in causation (a necessity for predestination). It moves identification of causation to post event. If you can’t have a pre-event identifiable cause, you can’t have predestination.

Take the dual slit experiment, you can’t know the cause unless you disrupt and alter the system, negating the cause to begin with.

So yes, the form of randomness I’m talking about is different than free will, but not distinct from it.

35

To IQ:

  1. Youâ??re changing positions on me here. First you declared that the inability to extract a distinct choice from our conscious thought was irrelevant. Now you attempt to use my argument against me â?? but reconstruct it ignoring the first premise, which is that no matter how hard you try, you will not be able to extract the exact moment in your thought process at which you make a choice.

  2. Youâ??re mistaking choice and action (I thought I covered this, but I guess not). I am entirely conscious of my having typed my response and hitting the submit button, but that is not the same as extracting my choice from those actions.

  3. Iâ??ll cover this again, because I suspect that it either wasnâ??t clear the first time or you missed it. In order for free will to exist we must be entirely conscious of its exertion. Without being aware of its exertion, it cannot be said to have been exerted by our consciousness, and is consequently not free will. Now, if you believe in free will, you must disagree with either this point, or you must believe that you are fully conscious of your choice â?? that you can identify exactly when it occurs (not in terms of time, but in terms of the sequence of mental events). Which one is it? If it is the idea of free will necessitating full consciousness of choice, let me know exactly which step violates the laws of logic. If you believe that you can precisely identify the moment in your mental process where all material considerations have been processed and you choose to do something (any action), I am skeptical, but please elaborate.

  4. Thatâ??s just bad syntax on your part. Stating â??I believe in Xâ?? translates into â??In my mental model of the world, X is a potential inputâ??. Stating â??I do not believe in Xâ?? translates into â??In my mental model, X is not a potential inputâ??. Having no belief in something yields the same result. Not knowing if one believes in something or not doesnâ??t, it means that â??X is a potential input, but before inputting it I must gather more informationâ??.

To DoubleDeuce:

I think that the heart of the problem here is your use of X, rather than between X and -X. A house built of lego pieces that have a fixed variance would be askew, but one built out of lego pieces with random variances would not. A fixed variance is multiplied in complexity, but random variance is removed as it averages itself out of the equation. Think of one coin being flipped. It is not predictable at all. Now take a system of 1000. We can say that about 500 will be heads with a fair degree of regularity. Now take as many coin flips as exist in the difference between a quantum particle and a molecule. That results in a physical law.

36

[quote]Thantophobia wrote:

To DoubleDeuce:

I think that the heart of the problem here is your use of X, rather than between X and -X. A house built of lego pieces that have a fixed variance would be askew, but one built out of lego pieces with random variances would not. A fixed variance is multiplied in complexity, but random variance is removed as it averages itself out of the equation. Think of one coin being flipped. It is not predictable at all. Now take a system of 1000. We can say that about 500 will be heads with a fair degree of regularity. Now take as many coin flips as exist in the difference between a quantum particle and a molecule. That results in a physical law. [/quote]

Lol, sorry, by X I really meant delta X, I was not assuming it was always the same.

But I’m afraid you are thinking about the situation incorrectly. We are talking about countless indeterminable variables adding up to 1 exact isolated unrepeatable event. A choice is not an average.

Each flip of a coin is an isolated event of it’s own and has no bearing statistically or philosophically of any other. Knowing that close to 500 out of 1000 flips will be heads doesn’t in any way predict a single flip. Even if you add the knowledge that it has come up heads 15 times in a row. According to your statistics at that point tails should come up in the remaining flips more often. This is a false sense of predictability. This is a bound and discrete system with only 2 possible options that science can predict no better than a monkey. That is absolutely not a predestined event.

Every single electron and photon and proton in the system effect the outcome in such a way the outcome is entirely indeterminate. And that is an amazingly simple system in the scheme of the universe.

37

[quote]clip11 wrote:
Fishsticks wrote:
Logic and sensibility doesn’t blend well with religion. A 8 year old could point out a fundamental logical problem after 5 mins reading the bible.

Of course, you can always respond to these problems with some logical acrobatics combined with careful cherry picking of what’s actually valid and not valid in the bible, in that particular case so it can seemingly back up your what you are saying.

Thats what im having a problem with, it doesnt line up with a logical thought pattern…like for instance, a talking snake! Or the whole Red Sea being parted…[/quote]

He wasn’t literally a snake. That’s howtey described him and really - I can see why.

I think people need to remember when reading the bible that it has been translated several times, the wording has been changed in some places because whatever language it was being translated into didn’t have a word that matched up perfectly with the original text, and that many religious leaders and government ‘officials’ messed with it too. The bible isn’t 100% correct. DOes it teach the word of God? yeah - I beleive it does as far as it’s been translated correctly. We use the King James version of the bible because we believe it’s the most correct version.

38

[quote]Hellfrost wrote:
colleend78 wrote:
When life gets confusing and hard I try to remember that I am a spiritual being on a human journey - where we are now is not going to last for forever and we are all destined for much greater things if we choose the right. :slight_smile:

It’s a good thing that when your life gets confusing and hard you remember that you are a spiritual being on a human journey. God forbid you feed the thousands of dieing children every day and saving the poor.

It’s funny how everyone thinks god has a plan for them, where is the plan of a 4 year old dieing because he can’t find water? If God can perform miracles by curing cancer on certain victims, he can’t make it rain a little?

If you believe, you will receive whatever you ask for in prayer. [Matthew 21:21]
Ask, and it will be given you. [Matthew 7:7]
Nothing will be impossible to you. [Matthew 17:20]

You think if the child really really believes that he will find water in a desert it will appear to him? You are right, maybe he just din’t believe enough and thought death was a better alternative.

What makes you so special in gods plan other then the fact that you were born in a country where if you were starving you would be fed, and if you were thirsty you would be given a drink?
[/quote]

Gee whiz - who peed in your coffee?? We didn’t come to this Earth to have a good ol time and have everything be happy and perfect. I imagine that if (theoretically speaking) everyone was more concerned about others as we should be there wouldn’t be any poor starving children. Would there? Perhaps we were born in a country that has everything we need because we’re supposed to be helping those who haven’t been. You know - serving others. Oh, and by the way, I do help feed the the poor starving children quite often. What makes you so special to think that because we’ve been born somewhere in particular we’re special??? Quit being an ass and go eat some icecream. Might make you a bit sweeter.

39

[quote]Thantophobia wrote:
To IQ:

  1. Youâ??re changing positions on me here. First you declared that the inability to extract a distinct choice from our conscious thought was irrelevant. Now you attempt to use my argument against me â?? but reconstruct it ignoring the first premise, which is that no matter how hard you try, you will not be able to extract the exact moment in your thought process at which you make a choice.[/quote]

Sounds as though it is you that has misunderstood, I stated that being able to know the exact moment a conscious choice is made is irrelevant not the ability to know that you have made a conscious choice.

[quote]
2. Youâ??re mistaking choice and action (I thought I covered this, but I guess not). I am entirely conscious of my having typed my response and hitting the submit button, but that is not the same as extracting my choice from those actions. [/quote]

The question that you have so far dodged still remains, did you make a conscious choice to reply or did you not? It may surprise you to learn that I knew that I was going to reply before I had actually replied, that’s how choices work.

Ignoring the fact that you were trying to change your argument I was addressing that you were now stating that you had no belief about free will (which is different from not having a belief in it).

I didn’t state that not having a belief about something would necessarily change anything, merely that it indicates either:

that you are unaware of its existence - Ignorance.

or

that you are afraid to make a decision - Intellectual cowardice.

It could also show that you can’t be bothered to make a decision - Intellectual laziness.

Logic dictates that something either is or it isn’t, it can’t be both or neither. Suspending your belief of a claim because you need further information still classifies a not accepting the claim and would count as your current belief.

40

This thread reminded me of a scene from “The West Wing.” You WW fans will remember this from the Season One episode, “Take this Sabbath Day.”

Rather than tell the story I’ll just paste in the transcript of the conversation…

FATHER CAVANAUGH
Did you pray?

BARTLET
I did, Tom. I know it’s hard to believe, but I prayed for wisdom.

FATHER CAVANAUGH
And none came?

BARTLET
[shakes his head] It never has. And I’m a little pissed off about that.

He looks at his watch, which says it’s a few seconds before midnight. It
hits him hard.

BARTLET
[dead serious] I’m not kidding.

FATHER CAVANAUGH
You know, you remind me of the man that lived by the river.

He heard a radio report that the river was going to rush up and flood the town. And that all the residents should evacuate their homes. But the man said, ‘I’m religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.’

The waters rose up. A guy in a row boat came along and he shouted,‘Hey, hey you! You in there. The town is flooding. Let me take you to safety.’ But the man shouted back, ‘I’m religious. I pray. God loves me. God will save me.’

A helicopter was hovering overhead. And a guy with a megaphone shouted, ‘Hey you, you down there. The town is flooding. Let me drop this ladder and I’ll take you to safety.’ But the man shouted back that he was religious, that he prayed, that God loved him and that God will take him to safety.

Well… the man drowned. And standing at the gates of St. Peter, he demanded an audience with God. ‘Lord,’ he said, ‘I’m a religious man, I pray. I thought you loved me. Why did this happen?’ God said, ‘I sent you a radio report, a helicopter, and a guy in a rowboat. What the hell are you doing here?’

He pauses. Bartlet looks very upset.

FATHER CAVANAUGH
He sent you a priest, a rabbi, and a Quaker, Mr. President. Not to mention
his son, Jesus Christ. What do you want from him?