Jesus Freaks...why do you believe?

[Napoleon Ier]

Free Will? Define freedom...
You will actually find free will contradicts it

Who is this directed to?

And aren't you Catholic?

well Im playing devil's advocate for a bit

Don't confuse them. They're still trying to work out whether or not God can create a love equal to that of a chosen love...

[Neoteny]

Free Will? Define freedom...
You will actually find free will contradicts it

Who is this directed to?

And aren't you Catholic?

well Im playing devil's advocate for a bit

Don't confuse them. They're still trying to work out whether or not God can create a love equal to that of a chosen love...

Ha!

[turtleman]

Jesus was the first zombie, that is why i believe in life after death

[Neutrino]

Thanks Neutrino, I thought I'd have to point out (again) that free will and a god that knows the future are mutually exclusive, luckily you did it for me.

One does one's best.

[CrazyAnglican]

Okay Guiscard a counter question.

Say, for the sake of argument, I obtain a love potion. It's capable of creating in the recipient the strongest of emotions. Real love so intense as has never been seen on earth before. There is a man or woman whom I desire. What is the problem with using the love potion? Wouldn't I be better off trying to win him or her over rather than exerting some magical power? Wouldn't using that power be analagous to rape?

My answer remains the same. Sure, God could force everyone to love him and have heaven on earth if he so chose. He, I assume, chooses not to because I have he ability to choose or reject him. Having the power to do that still qualifies him as omnipotent. Choosing not to qualifies him as omnibenevolent.

Take, for example, Neoteny's tongue-in-cheek remark about making everyone love him with such fervor that it would be like a constant orgasm. That is taking it to its logical extreme, but an orgasm is pleasure bordering on pain. What he would create would be Hell, not Heaven.

[unriggable]

Orgasm is painful? You should see a doctor.

[CrazyAnglican]

Orgasm is painful? You should see a doctor.

What? You've never gotten your partner to the point that he/she can't take anymore?

[soundout9]

I <3 god

[unriggable]

I <3 god

You are indeed less than three gods.

[Backglass]

I <3 god

You are indeed less than three gods.

Bwaaaahahahaha!

[Neoteny]

Okay Guiscard a counter question.

Say, for the sake of argument, I obtain a love potion. It's capable of creating in the recipient the strongest of emotions. Real love so intense as has never been seen on earth before. There is a man or woman whom I desire. What is the problem with using the love potion? Wouldn't I be better off trying to win him or her over rather than exerting some magical power? Wouldn't using that power be analagous to rape?

My answer remains the same. Sure, God could force everyone to love him and have heaven on earth if he so chose. He, I assume, chooses not to because I have he ability to choose or reject him. Having the power to do that still qualifies him as omnipotent. Choosing not to qualifies him as omnibenevolent.

Take, for example, Neoteny's tongue-in-cheek remark about making everyone love him with such fervor that it would be like a constant orgasm. That is taking it to its logical extreme, but an orgasm is pleasure bordering on pain. What he would create would be Hell, not Heaven.

Hm. Interesting argument. The first paragraph is a discussion of ethics, which, while valuable, I don't think really applies to the current discussion, though your implication that god would be raping us if we didn't have free will is astute.

I think you err in giving god the ability to choose. If he knows everything beforehand, then he knows what he will choose. That flies in the face of omnipotence because there isn't really any choice. It's a linear path through which choices could have been made.

As for the painful orgasm, I was being facetious so I'm not going to really comment other than I like a little biting, scratching, etc during my orgasms... I don't know that it would be like hell if it were to happen though. We have mechanisms of ignoring pain and other constant stimuli. I imagine it would eventually just become old hat. And sex would be boring. Not hell, just not heaven either.

[jay_a2j]

Thanks Neutrino, I thought I'd have to point out (again) that free will and a god that knows the future are mutually exclusive, luckily you did it for me.

They are not mutually exclusive! Lets say a mother makes a ham sandwich and a turkey sandwich, knowing that her son doesn't like turkey, she knows when he walks in, that he will choose to eat the ham sandwich. Moments later her son walks in and grabs the ham sandwich and starts to eat it. He had the free will to choose either sandwich.... yet he chose the ham as his mother knew he would. Not exactly a perfect analogy, but just because God KNOWS what we will choose to do, doesn't mean we don't have free will to make choices!

What you describe is not knowledge, it's a calculation of likelihoods based on previously assembled data. The mothers belief that her son would go for the ham sandwich wasn't true until he had taken it and started eating it.

Check Wikipedia for an introduction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

I'm not sure Jay responds to actual reason, MeDeFe... Best to give up now, really, and try and debate with some of the more intelligent posters.

You don't understand the concept of free will.... now who was the less than bright one?

[V.I.]

FYI Jay, citing wikipedia is tantamount to admitting you are supportive of the Bush Administration, or even denying homosexuals the same rights and privileges as "straight" folk.

[jay_a2j]

FYI Jay, citing wikipedia is tantamount to admitting you are supportive of the Bush Administration, or even denying homosexuals the same rights and privileges as "straight" folk.

Ummm where did I cite Wikipedia?

[Beastly]

It is theism that is placing the need to choose to do right at the centre of the argument. Beastly said he couldn't explain it, so maybe you can...

Can God create in us the same kind of love that we gain from choosing to love him of our own free will (that love being whatever semantic definition you choose)?

NO Beastly said, that God can Create the same kind of love or what ever....

The answer that I said I don't know was to a totally different question. That question was something about love being forced...

I said I couldn't answer that because no-one could answer that. NO-body can force love. So how the heck would I know...

And Comicboy said I flip-floped, but I answered you 2 different questions.

Yes, God can create what ever it wants...

and No, I couldn't possibly know if forced love is the same as chosen love. Nobody could know this.

[Guiscard]

It is theism that is placing the need to choose to do right at the centre of the argument. Beastly said he couldn't explain it, so maybe you can...

Can God create in us the same kind of love that we gain from choosing to love him of our own free will (that love being whatever semantic definition you choose)?

NO Beastly said, that God can Create the same kind of love or what ever....

The answer that I said I don't know was to a totally different question. That question was something about love being forced...

I said I couldn't answer that because no-one could answer that. NO-body can force love. So how the heck would I know...

And Comicboy said I flip-floped, but I answered you 2 different questions.

Yes, God can create what ever it wants...

and No, I couldn't possibly know if forced love is the same as chosen love. Nobody could know this.

Wow. We are getting confused aren't we.

So you say 'God can create whatever he wants' and apparently (I think) NO he CAN create the same kind of love as a love chosen of free will.

My argument is a reasonable one.

Option A) He can create a world with every person in it having that chosen love. Everyone has rejected sin, everyone will go to heaven. He is all powerful so he can do this.

Option B) He doesn't, and he decides to let people have free will and choose for themselves whether or not to love God. He allows the holocaust, the rape and torture of innocent civilians in countless wars...

Explain to me why he would choose Option B? You have already stated he is all powerful and that he can create the exact same love as a chosen love...

[Guiscard]

Okay Guiscard a counter question.

Say, for the sake of argument, I obtain a love potion. It's capable of creating in the recipient the strongest of emotions. Real love so intense as has never been seen on earth before. There is a man or woman whom I desire. What is the problem with using the love potion? Wouldn't I be better off trying to win him or her over rather than exerting some magical power? Wouldn't using that power be analagous to rape?

My answer remains the same. Sure, God could force everyone to love him and have heaven on earth if he so chose. He, I assume, chooses not to because I have he ability to choose or reject him. Having the power to do that still qualifies him as omnipotent. Choosing not to qualifies him as omnibenevolent.

Take, for example, Neoteny's tongue-in-cheek remark about making everyone love him with such fervor that it would be like a constant orgasm. That is taking it to its logical extreme, but an orgasm is pleasure bordering on pain. What he would create would be Hell, not Heaven.

Hm. Interesting argument. The first paragraph is a discussion of ethics, which, while valuable, I don't think really applies to the current discussion, though your implication that god would be raping us if we didn't have free will is astute.

I think you err in giving god the ability to choose. If he knows everything beforehand, then he knows what he will choose. That flies in the face of omnipotence because there isn't really any choice. It's a linear path through which choices could have been made.

As for the painful orgasm, I was being facetious so I'm not going to really comment other than I like a little biting, scratching, etc during my orgasms... I don't know that it would be like hell if it were to happen though. We have mechanisms of ignoring pain and other constant stimuli. I imagine it would eventually just become old hat. And sex would be boring. Not hell, just not heaven either.

Neotey's response is a good one, but I'll reiterate...

The problem with this little story is that you are ascribing to God human qualities. We cannot imagine omnipotence. Of course we would gain greater satisfaction if a person loved us freely rather than forcefully through a love potion, but the whole reasoned argument hinges on the fact that God CAN create exactly the same love with no noticeable difference whatsoever. Just going over and over why, to a human being, a chosen love is better than a forced love is not answering anything. We are talking about God. He can't have the satisfaction we would gain from someone choosing to love us (as opposed to being forced) because he, as all loving, should want the best for mankind, and that certainly ISN'T millions being tortured and raped.

[MeDeFe]

Thanks Neutrino, I thought I'd have to point out (again) that free will and a god that knows the future are mutually exclusive, luckily you did it for me.

They are not mutually exclusive! Lets say a mother makes a ham sandwich and a turkey sandwich, knowing that her son doesn't like turkey, she knows when he walks in, that he will choose to eat the ham sandwich. Moments later her son walks in and grabs the ham sandwich and starts to eat it. He had the free will to choose either sandwich.... yet he chose the ham as his mother knew he would. Not exactly a perfect analogy, but just because God KNOWS what we will choose to do, doesn't mean we don't have free will to make choices!

What you describe is not knowledge, it's a calculation of likelihoods based on previously assembled data. The mothers belief that her son would go for the ham sandwich wasn't true until he had taken it and started eating it.

Check Wikipedia for an introduction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

I'm not sure Jay responds to actual reason, MeDeFe... Best to give up now, really, and try and debate with some of the more intelligent posters.

You don't understand the concept of free will.... now who was the less than bright one?

I sure don't understand your concept of it since it clashes with the standard definition of knowledge I apply to the word, "true, justified belief".
At other points I've used the word 'opinion' instead of 'belief' due to translational inaccuracies, but it amounts to pretty much the same mental state.

[Snorri1234]

Thanks Neutrino, I thought I'd have to point out (again) that free will and a god that knows the future are mutually exclusive, luckily you did it for me.

They are not mutually exclusive! Lets say a mother makes a ham sandwich and a turkey sandwich, knowing that her son doesn't like turkey, she knows when he walks in, that he will choose to eat the ham sandwich. Moments later her son walks in and grabs the ham sandwich and starts to eat it. He had the free will to choose either sandwich.... yet he chose the ham as his mother knew he would. Not exactly a perfect analogy, but just because God KNOWS what we will choose to do, doesn't mean we don't have free will to make choices!

What you describe is not knowledge, it's a calculation of likelihoods based on previously assembled data. The mothers belief that her son would go for the ham sandwich wasn't true until he had taken it and started eating it.

Check Wikipedia for an introduction. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epistemology

I'm not sure Jay responds to actual reason, MeDeFe... Best to give up now, really, and try and debate with some of the more intelligent posters.

You don't understand the concept of free will.... now who was the less than bright one?

Uhm, that was not MeDeFe's point. God knows exactly what you will do, not based on previous experiences, but just because he knows it. Since he knows it, how can you argue that it isn't determined what you'll do? Because if it wasn't determined, then God wouldn't know it.

Say the mother jumped forward into the future and saw her son choosing the ham-sandwich and then jumped back into the present, does the son still have free will regarding choosing a sandwich? Because it's 100% certain which sandwich he'll choose and therefore he logically has no choice to do anything else.

[CrazyAnglican]

Hm. Interesting argument. The first paragraph is a discussion of ethics, which, while valuable, I don't think really applies to the current discussion, though your implication that god would be raping us if we didn't have free will is astute.

I think you err in giving god the ability to choose. If he knows everything beforehand, then he knows what he will choose. That flies in the face of omnipotence because there isn't really any choice. It's a linear path through which choices could have been made.

As for the painful orgasm, I was being facetious so I'm not going to really comment other than I like a little biting, scratching, etc during my orgasms... I don't know that it would be like hell if it were to happen though. We have mechanisms of ignoring pain and other constant stimuli. I imagine it would eventually just become old hat. And sex would be boring. Not hell, just not heaven either.

Neotey's response is a good one, but I'll reiterate...

The problem with this little story is that you are ascribing to God human qualities. We cannot imagine omnipotence. Of course we would gain greater satisfaction if a person loved us freely rather than forcefully through a love potion, but the whole reasoned argument hinges on the fact that God CAN create exactly the same love with no noticeable difference whatsoever. Just going over and over why, to a human being, a chosen love is better than a forced love is not answering anything. We are talking about God. He can't have the satisfaction we would gain from someone choosing to love us (as opposed to being forced) because he, as all loving, should want the best for mankind, and that certainly ISN'T millions being tortured and raped.

Wow, Guis there are a lot of incriminations against God there that all seem to hinge on one perceived paradox. You've stated, if I'm reading you right, that God could create exactly the same emotional feeling as great love within us (curiously you added with no noticeable difference which I'd have thought unnecessary if it was actually the exact same emotion). Going from there you propose, I think, that God should just make everyone love him and fix all of our problems because he is all-loving, and that is what an all-loving god should do. Therefore because there is evil in the world (no argument here) it must be because God is either powerless to stop it or because he doesn't love us enough to fix our problems for us (here is where we differ).

1) We agree that there is evil in the world and that is bad.
2) We agree that God, as an omnipotent deity, could have prevented
this evil in the world.
3) We agree that God, as a loving deity (I've actually never heard all-
loving, but that's okay I'm sure somebody uses it) would (does)
have compassion for his creations.

Where we disagree is equally subjective on both parts. We both attribute emotional qualities to God. You attribute callousness and uncaring to him. I attribute love that is so great that he'd be willing to allow someone to leave him, if they chose to do so, even though he has the power to stop them. It isn't enough for you to tell me that I can't attribute human qualities to an omnipotent God when you are doing exactly the same thing. My supposition as to what an omnipotent God would or should do is every bit as valid (and invalid) as yours.

I'm human so once again I'll have to put it in human terms. Having the power to do something implies the ability to choose not to do it. Any suppositions as to why it isn't done are exactly that. I offered a counter explanation to your argument. God can create love in us, but chooses to allow us to create love within ourselves. An unavoidable consequence of that love is that most will refuse at times and perpetrate misdeeds, but God does not step in because those being oppressed will gain more for having suffered and those who oppress are still his creations and must be given the chance to repent. I'm not telling you that this is how things are, only that this interpretation of reality is just as valid as yours.

[Backglass]

FYI Jay, citing wikipedia is tantamount to admitting you are supportive of the Bush Administration, or even denying homosexuals the same rights and privileges as "straight" folk.

Ummm where did I cite Wikipedia?

We all know that Dictionary.com is Jay's ultimate source.

Explain to me why he would choose Option B? You have already stated he is all powerful and that he can create the exact same love as a chosen love...

That's easy. Followers claim Option B is the truth because it is the only way to reconcile reality with their bible.

[suggs]

Because they're CUNTS.

[Neoteny]

Hm. Interesting argument. The first paragraph is a discussion of ethics, which, while valuable, I don't think really applies to the current discussion, though your implication that god would be raping us if we didn't have free will is astute.

I think you err in giving god the ability to choose. If he knows everything beforehand, then he knows what he will choose. That flies in the face of omnipotence because there isn't really any choice. It's a linear path through which choices could have been made.

As for the painful orgasm, I was being facetious so I'm not going to really comment other than I like a little biting, scratching, etc during my orgasms... I don't know that it would be like hell if it were to happen though. We have mechanisms of ignoring pain and other constant stimuli. I imagine it would eventually just become old hat. And sex would be boring. Not hell, just not heaven either.

Neotey's response is a good one, but I'll reiterate...

The problem with this little story is that you are ascribing to God human qualities. We cannot imagine omnipotence. Of course we would gain greater satisfaction if a person loved us freely rather than forcefully through a love potion, but the whole reasoned argument hinges on the fact that God CAN create exactly the same love with no noticeable difference whatsoever. Just going over and over why, to a human being, a chosen love is better than a forced love is not answering anything. We are talking about God. He can't have the satisfaction we would gain from someone choosing to love us (as opposed to being forced) because he, as all loving, should want the best for mankind, and that certainly ISN'T millions being tortured and raped.

Wow, Guis there are a lot of incriminations against God there that all seem to hinge on one perceived paradox. You've stated, if I'm reading you right, that God could create exactly the same emotional feeling as great love within us (curiously you added with no noticeable difference which I'd have thought unnecessary if it was actually the exact same emotion). Going from there you propose, I think, that God should just make everyone love him and fix all of our problems because he is all-loving, and that is what an all-loving god should do. Therefore because there is evil in the world (no argument here) it must be because God is either powerless to stop it or because he doesn't love us enough to fix our problems for us (here is where we differ).

1) We agree that there is evil in the world and that is bad.
2) We agree that God, as an omnipotent deity, could have prevented
this evil in the world.
3) We agree that God, as a loving deity (I've actually never heard all-
loving, but that's okay I'm sure somebody uses it) would (does)
have compassion for his creations.

Where we disagree is equally subjective on both parts. We both attribute emotional qualities to God. You attribute callousness and uncaring to him. I attribute love that is so great that he'd be willing to allow someone to leave him, if they chose to do so, even though he has the power to stop them. It isn't enough for you to tell me that I can't attribute human qualities to an omnipotent God when you are doing exactly the same thing. My supposition as to what an omnipotent God would or should do is every bit as valid (and invalid) as yours.

I'm human so once again I'll have to put it in human terms. Having the power to do something implies the ability to choose not to do it. Any suppositions as to why it isn't done are exactly that. I offered a counter explanation to your argument. God can create love in us, but chooses to allow us to create love within ourselves. An unavoidable consequence of that love is that most will refuse at times and perpetrate misdeeds, but God does not step in because those being oppressed will gain more for having suffered and those who oppress are still his creations and must be given the chance to repent. I'm not telling you that this is how things are, only that this interpretation of reality is just as valid as yours.

I still disagree with the idea that we have the ability to create love within ourselves. I cannot see how that is possible so your whole argument, to me, breaks down at that point. And without the possibility of creating love, according to your interpretation of reality, our "test" on earth is pointless, and god is either subjecting us to unnecessary suffering, or he doesn't exist, in which case, your interpretation is not as valid as mine (it's hard to say that without sounding like a jackass... Richard Dawkins gets a lot of criticism for it, but the reason I have so much respect for him is his forthrightness... so I'm just going to say it. Maybe if I put a frowny face with it? lol ).

God does not step in because those being oppressed will gain more for having suffered

This is a common Christian theme, and I find it, I can't think of a gentler way to put it, disgusting. Unfortunate events can serve as lessons for people, but suffering has no useful cause.



This is a pretty famous, potent picture that I'm sure people have seen before. I read that the photographers in the area were told not to touch the locals to prevent disease spread etc, and that the photographer later committed suicide over the grief of having seen these sights. This girl was crawling to a (UN?, Red Cross? I can't remember) aid station and had stopped to rest when the picture was taken. Now, can you honestly tell me that this child was gaining more from her suffering? Of course not. Try looking at it from the point of view of the atheist. It's heartbreaking. Christians get consolation from their delusion that there is another life afterward, which allows them the comforts of laziness and apathy. I, however, feel a sense of responsibility and empathy that I just don't see you, as a Christian, capable of sharing.

[unriggable]

...laziness.

[daddy1gringo]

He has the power to know what will happen in the future, but that does not conflict at all with his being able to give us free will and place the choices that we make outside of that knowledge to see what we will do. As in the analogies I gave with a computer spreadsheet and a master chess player, he could still see the end results but those results could be fluid based on our choices. And that is just with examples from our 4-dimensional experience. It is all the more simple to accept when you realize that he is not so limited.

That bolded part sounds pretty firm, absolute, but the rest of the text is backing off from the idea that god is completely and totally omnipotent.

Which is it?

Either god knows all and sees all (including the future), eliminating free will, or to it the future is fluid and variable, eliminating a lot of everyone's faith in the accuracy and/or translation of the Bible.

Thanks Neutrino, I thought I'd have to point out (again) that free will and a god that knows the future are mutually exclusive, luckily you did it for me.

Either you aren’t really reading what I wrote, or you are just blinded by your blind faith in this dogma of yours that the two must be mutually exclusive that you can’t see. No they are not mutually exclusive.

The words “knows the future” and “omniscience” are not in the Bible, the closest thing is Isaiah 46:9-10: “I am God and there is none like Me, declaring the end from the beginning, and from ancient times things that are not yet done, saying, ‘my counsel shall stand, and I will do all My pleasure.’”

So He knows the end from the beginning. Which end? The end if you choose A, or the end if you choose B? Yes. By giving you the choice, by definition he chose not to determine which you would choose. But He knows the end either way. Whether or not He could know which you will choose is academic. He chose not to by giving you a choice.

To say he “cannot do” something that cannot be done by the definition of the thing is not a problem with His power, but with your semantics.

Why should my faith in the inerrancy of the Bible be troubled because the truth conflicts with one possible definition of some English or Latin term which is not in the Bible, but which somebody thinks is commensurate with something that is in it?