Soule Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 does the christian god have free will? deductive reasoning points to no. if god is indeed a perfect being, then he wouldent be able to make any action besides what would be perfect. that would mean that a)he dosnt have free will, and hes not all powerful. what do you think? stupid focking smiley... since when is a smiley? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 15, 2006 Share Posted August 15, 2006 does the christian god have free will? deductive reasoning points to no. if god is indeed a perfect being, then he wouldent be able to make any action besides what would be perfect. that would mean that a)he dosnt have free will, and hes not all powerful. what do you think? stupid focking smiley... since when is a smiley? 1. If he was a perfect being, he would choose to make perfect actions. How is that not free will? 2. Why not? He doesn't have to be all-powerful anyways. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soule Posted August 17, 2006 Author Share Posted August 17, 2006 does the christian god have free will? deductive reasoning points to no. if god is indeed a perfect being, then he wouldent be able to make any action besides what would be perfect. that would mean that a)he dosnt have free will, and hes not all powerful. what do you think? stupid focking smiley... since when is a smiley? 1. If he was a perfect being, he would choose to make perfect actions. How is that not free will? 2. Why not? He doesn't have to be all-powerful anyways. yes he would choose to make perfect actions. however, in order to continue to stay perfect, he would not have the capacity to think, or do anything less than perfect, thus a lack of free will. because his power is then limited, he is not all powerful. no he dosnt have to be all powerful, but thats what the christians define him as, so thats what we are going off of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Do humans have free will? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 What does Free mean? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dhampir Posted August 17, 2006 Share Posted August 17, 2006 Are we capable of acting in a manner inconsistent with our programming, or does it just appear so because our programming is so complex? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Admin webmdave Posted August 18, 2006 Admin Share Posted August 18, 2006 I might choose to have an ice cream, but that's because I like ice cream, have the opportunity, have a couple of dollars, live in America where ice cream is plentiful, etc. Would I have free choice to have ice cream in a third-world country without electricity? Or better yet, could I will myself to hate ice cream, to loath the very thought of it? I might hate my assignment at work, but I like the money, so I choose to keep the job and the security, as opposed to choosing to starve. We are only as free as far as our choices allow us to be. And our choices are confined by our circumstances, our personalities, our place in history, and perhaps thousands of other inhibitors. In order to have absolute free will, I'd be able to will myself to have different natural tendencies, different talents, different looks—you name it. The fact is, there is very little I can will to be different about myself, so I have to learn to work within the framework of the programming in-planted in my DNA. Again, can I will myself to not be attracted to the opposite sex? Can I will a change in my sexual orientation? Can I really choose to change any of the basic parts of my personality? To a very large degree, free will is an illusion. Since the supposed Christian God is confined by his nature to behave in certain predictable ways—i.e., never changing—then the Christian God does not have free will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 Agree to both of you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Asimov Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 What does Free mean? For action (x) at point (t) An action (x) at point (t) is free if and only if the being could do otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 perfect is a subjective term. ones actions might be considered perfect by one person, but flawwed by another. and i think there is a difference between God and his actions, i think you must separate the two. the being might be perfect, but the actions are subject to interpritation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
K9 Jake Posted August 18, 2006 Share Posted August 18, 2006 If we are referring to the Christian God, then yes, he/she/it, does have free will. In the OT he was more of a God of war. In the NT, he seemed to be more about loving and forgiveness. That would appear to be the work of a being with the power of choice. I have said it before, but another thought would be: For the sake of argument, lets pretend there is an all powerful being (God) , and that we all believe in said God. Now if that God is all powerful, and that fact is undisputable (again for the sake of argument), then can he truly make a wrong decision if he makes and/or breaks all the rules he choses. Basically, can he change his mind? If he does change his mind, does that mean either one of his decisions were wrong? Were they both right? If you could infinately change laws to suit your needs at any moment, then could you ever truly break the law? According to the Bible he shows emotion. As in, he can get angry etc. So if a being can show emotion, then he probably applies it in some of his decisions. And the emotions can possibly sway some of his decisions. I would imagine a perfect being by some peoples standards would have no emotion to cloud judgement. All these things, atleast to me point to free will. And if nothing else, what is perfect? Who defines what perfect means? I think its all 'In the Eye of the Beholder'. Just my thoughts. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taphophilia Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 I think it's reasonable to judge god by his actions. Since it is actions that humans judge. If we judge his actions by human standards, god falls short. Wouldn't a being that is perfect be judged as perfect by mere human standards, which are supposed to be way below god's standards? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 I think it's reasonable to judge god by his actions. Since it is actions that humans judge. If we judge his actions by human standards, god falls short. Wouldn't a being that is perfect be judged as perfect by mere human standards, which are supposed to be way below god's standards? i get your point, but when i imagine God. this is not the way i look at him. for humans to judge him, would be like a judge that does not know all the facts, the past, the present, the future. making a judgement based on limited knowledge of God. it is subjective of humans to judge his actions. from our perspective, we might find it a atrocity(sp). from his perspective, it might make perfect sense in the sceme of things. when we talk about the genocides (i am assuming this is what we are judging him on), we don't have all the facts straight. what if it really didn't go down that way, what if the people of the times thought it was God leading them to do it. if i went out and killed someone in the name of the Lord because i said he told me to. you would throw me in a padded cell. no one would believe me. K9jake: in conclusion, i have come to think more like you, i think that the writers could have corrupted the bible. maybe it is close-minded to think that our bible is the only truth, the whole truth and the infawlable exact word of God. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 19, 2006 Share Posted August 19, 2006 Supposedly our sense of morality was given by God, then God acts in opposition to the same moral code. Is God making a good example of what morality is, when he supposedly makes the moral code and then totally ignore it himself? That's not how a parent act with their kids. If God made us a moral being, and that moral is the highest code, then God can be judged by the same moral code, since that moral is supposedly perfect. Unless, the moral code we're given is not perfect, and the perfect way of acting is how God does it in the old testament. --edit-- If God is the law maker, and the judge, compare this to a natural situation: a lawmaker, judge and police in one person in real life that establishes laws that no one can follow, and when they break them he puts them in jail for life, but the same lawmaker/judge/police person breaks all the laws at his own will. Do we call that righteous? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Supposedly our sense of morality was given by God, then God acts in opposition to the same moral code. Is God making a good example of what morality is, when he supposedly makes the moral code and then totally ignore it himself? That's not how a parent act with their kids. If God made us a moral being, and that moral is the highest code, then God can be judged by the same moral code, since that moral is supposedly perfect. Unless, the moral code we're given is not perfect, and the perfect way of acting is how God does it in the old testament. --edit-- If God is the law maker, and the judge, compare this to a natural situation: a lawmaker, judge and police in one person in real life that establishes laws that no one can follow, and when they break them he puts them in jail for life, but the same lawmaker/judge/police person breaks all the laws at his own will. Do we call that righteous? what if the OT writing are wrong, and inaccurate toward God's morality. maybe that is why Jesus came. to set the records straight. i think we would all agree he lived a moral life. from what is known of him anyway. but for arguments sake. when you are the creator of morals, you are entitled to the right to break them as you see fit for the greater good. for ex. my parents smoked, when i started smoking they encouraged me not to. not that my parents smoking made them immoral, but they had experiences and knowledge that i didn't to encourage me to do what was best for me. maybe we missed the verse in the bible that says "do as i say, not as i do" i hope you are a parent that doesn't use that cheesy line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Well, I'm not going to argue against a theory that Jesus was sent to correct the mistakes of the OT, but I don't consider it morally correct to tell your kids to not hurt other people, and then abuse them. When you say the phrase "do as I say, not as I do", in infers that the person who speaks this phrase is aware that he's not correct in his own actions. Lets take the example of the smoking parent telling their kids to not to smoke. There the parent consider smoking as a bad thing, and by their own standards are not up to par with the 'commands'. A smoking parent who tells their kids not to do it, is a perfect example of a non-moral God, who demands a higher standard by his subjects than he demands from himself. Of course an all powerful being have the power to do this, but by allowing that to be called moral, is in fact setting two different standards of moral. One moral is what Humans are supposed to do, and God's personal moral is whatever God can do in his power to do. We often hear the argument that if you run a red light or speeding, you're at guilt of breaking the law and should be punished. But I know that a few years ago a cop got a ticket for speeding from a fellow officer, because the police is only allowed to speed if they are in pursuit or have the lights on. Otherwise they are required to follow the law too. A police officer is not allowed to just go out on the street and shoot people at random; it would be murder, and he would be charged. And the same would go for a judge, a lawyer or a politician. Only because someone have a higher rank in the law system, they still have to obey the law. God have exempted himself from this law, and still people claim him to be lawful. That is a misnomer or redefinition of what the words really mean. My point is, if there is a God that acted that way, we have no right to say that he is moral or good or lawful or righteous, since all those things only apply to a being that can measure up to a standard higher than himself, and God wouldn't have a standard higher than himself and could not be judged good or evil. The God acting both moral and immoral is a being that just is. (Yin/Yang...) (Oh, I see you read the Omni-v-Hans debate, judging from your sigline. I'm impressed that you managed to read any of it. It's rather convoluted.) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Hans: you got me on that one. it was a crappy example. i will just stick to the idea that it is unfair for us to judge God on the accounts of the OT, since we may not have all the facts. and since i don't really think the bible is the infalable exact words of God himself. then it works just fine for me. you know i have been reading the hell out of your debate. still waiting on the 2nd part of his reply. taking forever. they must have crappy power lines over there for the rain to knock it out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ouroboros Posted August 21, 2006 Share Posted August 21, 2006 Freeday, I can accept that. At long as you are honest about not-knowing all things, then understanding about life will unravel easily from it. I think I claim to know less today than I did 20 years ago. The more insight you get into things, the more you understand how little you really know. Regarding the debate, well, we'll see where it ends. I learned that it isn't the kind of debate that I like. I much prefer this shoot-from-the-hip style like we have in this topic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
freeday Posted August 22, 2006 Share Posted August 22, 2006 Freeday, I can accept that. At long as you are honest about not-knowing all things, then understanding about life will unravel easily from it. I think I claim to know less today than I did 20 years ago. The more insight you get into things, the more you understand how little you really know. Regarding the debate, well, we'll see where it ends. I learned that it isn't the kind of debate that I like. I much prefer this shoot-from-the-hip style like we have in this topic. let me know when you wanna go at it with the genisis account being accurate? it would take me a little bit to make an opening statement but after that, we could fly from the hip. i am not trying to convert you, and we all know you have more knowledge in the subject than i do. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts