God botherers, I want your opinions.

[gazasaurusu]

If every waking thought you have is coloured and influenced by the knowledge of God, is it possible for you to have free will?

[Paranoid Marvin]

Here's another possibility, there is no god, therefore everything you do is your own doing.

[gazasaurusu]

Here's another possibility, there is no god, therefore everything you do is your own doing.

 

Yes I agree with that, but I want to hear from those that do believe there is a god, do they think they have free will?

[socal swimmer]

I think that God is a crutch for the weak, a way to excuse people who can't handle the consequences of their actions and who can't handle the idea that things "just happen".

 

But to answer your question, people can think of God in many different ways. They can think that God stays mostly out of our lives and just helps every once in a while (reinforces free will), or they can think that God controls everything (no free will).

 

If I believed in God, I would believe in the former.

[cringemaster]

I think that God is a crutch for the weak, a way to excuse people who can't handle the consequences of their actions and who can't handle the idea that things "just happen".

 

But to answer your question, people can think of God in many different ways. They can think that God stays mostly out of our lives and just helps every once in a while (reinforces free will), or they can think that God controls everything (no free will).

 

If I believed in God, I would believe in the former.

 

Well put. I do not have any belief in god, but at one point in my life I did, and when I did I just kinda followed the whole idea of being a good person until I saw how ugly religion can be. Looking back, I basically do the same thing now, and if I can be a good person with free will without the help of a god, then so can anyone else.

[apowerr]

I think that God is a crutch for the weak, a way to excuse people who can't handle the consequences of their actions and who can't handle the idea that things "just happen".

After suffering a major loss or tragedy, the belief in the supernatural can be very comforting to people. Funerals would be 30X more depressing if no one believed in an afterlife or reincarnation of some sort.

 

Currently I'm somewhat of a diest. I think there is a greater 'power' or 'god' of some sort. It is not conscious in the same way that you and I are conscious however. It does not care for us or the universe, it never has and it never will. Furthermore it's not really an 'it' , it's just something thats there (almost like gravity or something). Anyway thats what I think

[Paranoid Marvin]

After suffering a major loss or tragedy, the belief in the supernatural can be very comforting to people. Funerals would be 30X more depressing if no one believed in an afterlife or reincarnation of some sort.

 

Currently I'm somewhat of a diest. I think there is a greater 'power' or 'god' of some sort. It is not conscious in the same way that you and I are conscious however. It does not care for us or the universe, it never has and it never will. Furthermore it's not really an 'it' , it's just something thats there (almost like gravity or something). Anyway thats what I think

 

On the contrary, I would find it more depressing to believe that my relative is still alive somewhere, and I'm not going to see them again any time soon unless I kill myself!

I think it's good to believe that everything and everyone has its time, and there is no avoiding or postponing it.

 

One of the guys at school I am friends with is a fairly devoted (psychopathic?) Christian, I will ask him today

[Embio]

Marx ended this when he called all religion 'the opiate of the masses'

[3nigma]

I think there is a greater 'power' or 'god' of some sort. It is not conscious in the same way that you and I are conscious however... Furthermore it's not really an 'it' , it's just something thats there (almost like gravity or something).

It's called 'The Force,' Luke

On the contrary, I would find it more depressing to believe that my relative is still alive somewhere, and I'm not going to see them again any time soon unless I kill myself!

Or, unless you just eventually die...

 

You don't actually believe what you just said, do you? You can't be serious.

 

You are saying that it is more depressing if there is an afterlife where you can see your family again, because that will take a long time for you to then follow to get to the afterlife.

 

Huh.

 

You are a deeply thoughtful person.

Does the existence of God negate the possibility of free will?

Yes, and no.

 

There are two theological sides on this issue- Arminianism and Calvinism. Arminianists believe in free will and man's choice of God, and God's giving freedom of that choice. Calvinists believe that God is ultimately sovereign, and that humans don't choose God, but God chooses them.

 

Both theological sides, on the whole, believe in "predestination," and that God has foreordained some (or all) events in life. Arminianists believe man has a choice in the midst of these predestined events, Calvinists say that God's omniscience cannot be trumped by man's "freedom." Arminianists can counter that God's omniscience is pre-aware of man's free choices, and acts accordingly. Calvinists retort that as a result of that train of thought, man has a higher power than God.

 

As a general rule, most normal Christians, who live normal lives, are Arminianists. As another general rule, most theologians, who study the Bible intensely, are Calvinists.

 

You will get different answers from different people. It's a theological debate that has gone on for centuries, with no resolution in sight.

 

-3nigma

[maclust]

i am a Christian by belief but not practice, with that i should probably elaborate, i do believe in god and the teachings of jesus christ, but at the same time i have no faith in humanity as a whole. meaning i do not go to church because of the people that also attend that church, if you have ever been to one then you know what i'm talking about. now about free will, yes God does know everything even before you do it, but my belief is that it's a map, you can travel down one path that has one destination, and when some one comes and influences your life you can take another road leading to a completely different destination. god knows both destinations but lets you chose which road to take.

[Xogede]

This could be a possible explanation:

Imagine traveling forward in time, and meeting yourself. Observe yourself for some time, then go back. Now you know what you will do at the time you observed yourself. Does this mean that you have no free will in doing it? Would you have it if you had not observed yourself like this?

Of course this is a hard question, and both answers would have their own arguments. Basically, what I think is this:

If something is known in the future, it does not have to be decided/pre-destined.

 

The Bible says that God is omnipresent and eternal. Could this mean that He (in some way unknown to us) exists outside of time? What I mean is, if you consider time as some kind of fouth dimension, He could be omnipresent in all four dimensions. This could mean that he can know something that is not yet decided.

 

Of course there are lots of problems with this, both logical (as with all time travel paradoxes, and the easiest answer is that time travel is logically impossible) and theological. But I still consider this a possibility, one of many.

 

But now, I have a question for the aetheists: What do you think about free will? If what we can (or could possibly) see (that is, materia) is all there is, what is free will? If everything in the world is controlled by cause and effect (and maybe randomness, if you consider radioactive decay), can there be any real free will?

 

maclust: We don't always like the people around us. Usually, we are not better.

Jesus told us not to be proud and not to judge.

Paul told us not to leave the church.

James told us to follow Christ not only in faith, but also in deeds (going so far as saying "As the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without deeds is dead." (2:26)).

 

I know, sometimes it feels like you're the only one in the world that tries to follow God. Been there, done that. I just hope you soon realize it's not true. If you really think your (previous) church is hopeless, try to find another church. There really is no point sitting in some hidden corner of your home and believing in God.

[3nigma]

The Bible says that God is omnipresent and eternal. Could this mean that He (in some way unknown to us) exists outside of time?

God simultaneously exists both outside of time, and intimately with man inside of time. This is the "Transcendence" of God and the "Immanence" of God.

What I mean is, if you consider time as some kind of fouth dimension, He could be omnipresent in all four dimensions. This could mean that he can know something that is not yet decided.

God is also omniscient; i.e. he knows all things.

 

-3nigma

[Xogede]

God is also omniscient; i.e. he knows all things.

This is exactly what I'm talking about. Normally, in order for somebody to know something, it has to be decided, thereby removing the possibility of free will (asserting that if something is already decided, we cannot decide it). I mean that this is not a problem if God is outside (or both inside and outside) time.

 

Transcendence: 'A theological term referring to the relation of God to creation. God is "other," "different" from creation'

The question is if you consider time itself to be a part of the creation. The Bible says something that can be interpreted this way ("a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years for Me"), but, AFAIK, It does not mention the issue directly. So it's still just a possibility.

 

BTW, there may be other reasons that most theologians are calvinists (which I highly doubt: I know a lot of these guys; very few of them are calvinists) than the obvious one. For example, it's probably less likely for a person who believes in everything being pre-destined to live a normal life.

[3nigma]

Normally, in order for somebody to know something, it has to be decided, thereby removing the possibility of free will (asserting that if something is already decided, we cannot decide it).

Just because someone knows with all certainty the choice that you are going to make, that does not mean that you have no choice, or that you cannot choose otherwise. You can apply this to practical life as well. If I know someone intimately, and I know a choice or preference they have and I can "know" with certainty the choice they will make, they still have total control to choose that choice; indeed, they do.

Transcendence: 'A theological term referring to the relation of God to creation. God is "other," "different" from creation'

The question is if you consider time itself to be a part of the creation. The Bible says something that can be interpreted this way ("a thousand years is like a day and a day is like a thousand years for Me"), but, AFAIK, It does not mention the issue directly. So it's still just a possibility.

Time is certainly an element of the created order. God existed before time. Before creation, there was simply God in all eternity (Gen 1:1). God created time when he created the universe.

 

Time is understood as a consecutive succession of 'moments.' One way to understand it is this: How do we measure time? We measure time in seconds, minutes, days, years, etc. By what means do we measure these units? By the travel of the sun around the earth.

 

The sun is part of creation, just as the earth is. Time, as we understand it, is a consequence of this creation. God is outside of time, transcendent above and beyond it. This can be seen in his name that he ascribes to himself: "I AM THAT I AM." To the casual reader, that is a bizarre "name." However, the implications are that he is simply the existing one- existing in the past, present, future, forever. He is, period. He simply IS. Before creation was, he was.

BTW, there may be other reasons that most theologians are calvinists (which I highly doubt: I know a lot of these guys; very few of them are calvinists) than the obvious one. For example, it's probably less likely for a person who believes in everything being pre-destined to live a normal life.

That is an entirely subjective opinion- one that history has proven false.

 

A brief survey of the most prominent theologians provides ample evidence: Wayne Grudem, Millard Erikson, Luis Berkhof, John Piper, R.C. Sproul, John Stott, every single Puritan, etc. The list of Calvinist theologians reads simply as the "Who's Who in Theology" list. Most (all) notable and prolific theologians are of the Reformed tradition.

 

I heard it put well when once said, "Live like an Arminian, Pray like a Calvinist."

 

-3nigma

[Alessandro17]

There is an option that nobody has considered: what we call "reality" or "life" is in fact an illusion. Eastern Philosophies (but also illustrious Westerners, see for instance Shakespeare's The Tempest) believe that our earthly life is a dream, or, to use a modern word, a movie.

You understand of course that there isn't much freedom in a movie, but it doesn't matter, because we watch it either to amuse ourselves or to learn something.

Of course another consequence is that Alessandro, Paranoid Marvin, 3nigma, erei33... are not real (and not just because we are using nicks )

The only reality is the Divine, Eternal "I Am", or "Atman", which is our true Higher Self.

 

See also: Illusions, by Richard Bach (a short, pleasant novel):

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Illusions_(novel)

 

Or: Autobiography of a Yogi

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autobiography_of_a_Yogi

 

(Both books suggested as an easy start in case you want to know more).

[Numberzz]

Let me first say that I do not believe in God. I would like to say that if you always think of God you still have freewill, although what you choose to do can have a repercussion.

[Special-K]

I don't believe in God. It's just something for some people to use when they feel life's too overwhelming. Me on the other hand, don't use that crutch. If life becomes hard, I deal with it. And party. =]

[mifki]

I dont believe in a god, but there might something greater at work in the world, you never know. Being atheist is just ignorant, being agnostic is smart

[Special-K]

Being atheist is just ignorant, being agnostic is smart

I concur.

[Xogede]

This depends on what you mean by "all certainty". If you just mean "pretty sure", you're missing the point. If you know somebody intimately, you could very well "know" what that person will do in a certain situation. Our choices are heavily influenced by our personalities, but then there is this "free will" thing that we're talking about: a person may, even if he is not likely to, do something that goes against his personality. Even if it happens in .00000001% of cases, it still happens. This is not the kind of omniscience that (I believe) God has: when he knows something, it means it will be that way. This means that if he (currently) knows everything, there is only one outcome for each given choice (from now on) - the one that God knows will happen. This allows for neither randomness nor free will.

 

"Eternal" simply means that for every given time, God existed at that time. Of course it's hard to imagine something like this, but it's even harder to imagine something existing outside of time. For example: in our world, all actions and events take time. Time is not only a sequence of moments, it's also a sequence of events. It's pretty hard to imagine something actually happening in a world (or whatever you might call it) without time. The Bible never tells about God creating time.

 

The name "I AM", in my understanding, means one thing and one thing only: that God is the definition of "existing". We can't say in what way God exists, He simply exists. But is time really a characteristic of "existing"? This really depends on what you consider time to be: for example, does time still exist if there's no way to measure it? IMHO, it does.

 

The questions really isn't whether God is "existing in the past, present, future, forever". The question is whether He always existed, exists, and will exist forever or if He exists at all times, at the same time.

 

 

I think you misunderstood me on that one. By "living a normal life", I meant exactly the same thing as you: not being a theologian. I know that history has proven false the thesis that somebody who believes everything to be pre-destined should just lay down and die (or something like that), just look at the original calvinists. But let me shortly explain my own experience of what I was actually saying:

I grew up in a baptist family with very traditional values, but moved to another country, where I joined a church with much more "modern" views. I regularly visit my old church (when I'm visiting my grandparents during the summer), and the one thing that I've noticed for sure is:

Shortly, in my old church, there's a greater percentage of theologians, and a greater percentage of calvinists

(maybe there is even some relation of conservatism to both of these? Maybe also to the number of members (see below)? But now I'm going just too far in my pro hoc reasoning...).

So, what I meant was the following "A person who believes everything to be pre-destined is more likely to become a theologian". Sure, this is a subjective opinion (though partly based on experience). Exactly as subjective as the reverse, "A theologian is more likely to become a person who believe that everything is pre-destined", which is what (I think that) you try to imply when you say that all theologians are calvinists.

 

This may seem to contradict what I said about knowing more arminianistic theologians that calvinistic. Remember, however, that I talked about percentages in the previous paragraph. The are many more members in my current church.

 

Now, I'm not talking about famous theologians, only about people I know. I've never cared to study them (I prefer studying my Bible instead ), so I can't verify your statement about most famous theologians being calvinistic (the only thing I can find about this on Wikipedia is "[...] but the overwhelming majority of Protestant, evangelical pastors and theologians hold to one of these two systems or somewhere in between."), but it would not surpise me too much if that was the case (consider this as me giving up on the "doubting" part). But unfortunately, there is no way we can count everybody with a degree in theology.

 

BTW, what is the point of praying if everything is pre-destined anyway? Oh, right, your prayer is pre-destined too. Nice to think of that when you pray next time .

 

bedlight: In hard times, some people come to God, and some go (I need somebody to support me/How could God allow this to happen?). The same goes for good times (I want somebody to thank for everything/I've got everything I want, I don't need God anymore), and for any number of other reasons or (what seems like) no reason at all.

[Special-K]

I know, I was just saying that I don't do that. Anything bad that's happened is my fault, same with good things. It was all me. There's no otherworldly force helping me. There might be one, but it's being an isolationist and leaving me the hell alone. That's what I meant.

[socal swimmer]

I dont believe in a god, but there might something greater at work in the world, you never know. Being atheist is just ignorant, being agnostic is smart

 

If someone walks up to you on the street that looks like a crazy man, smells like a crazy man, and talks like a crazy man, and tells you that he can fly, shoot laser beams from his eyes, and walk on water, would you believe him?

 

By your logic, you would have to say "Well I don't know, but it is certainly possible".

 

However, I would feel justified in saying "you are a crackpot, and I don't believe a single word you say".

 

That is why i'm atheist (but technically agnostic).

[3nigma]

bedlight and Kiko, please keep this thread on topic. There are already forty eight threads on this forum for bashing Christianity and why you are an atheist, so please refrain from the off-topic posts. I don't mind your opinions whatsoever and would be hhappy to chat about it, but there are already so many threads about that, it would be a shame to see this fantastinc conversation get bogged down by waste. This particular discussion is strictly about the concept of God versus man's free will.

This is not the kind of omniscience that (I believe) God has: when he knows something, it means it will be that way. This means that if he (currently) knows everything, there is only one outcome for each given choice (from now on) - the one that God knows will happen. This allows for neither randomness nor free will.

I chose a poor example- there is no natural example that would fit, that was the best available.

 

Again, just because God will know your choice, you are the one that chose it- not him. Just because someone knows the choice you are going to make, what difference does that make on your free choice to make the choice? It only seems like you have no choice, just because the person (God) already knows what you will choose. So what? That's the point. God is bigger than people, bigger than us, and we don't get it. It makes sense that there are some things about a big transcendent God that we would not understand. What kind of god would God be if he could be caught by surprise?

"Eternal" simply means that for every given time, God existed at that time. Of course it's hard to imagine something like this, but it's even harder to imagine something existing outside of time. For example: in our world, all actions and events take time. Time is not only a sequence of moments, it's also a sequence of events. It's pretty hard to imagine something actually happening in a world (or whatever you might call it) without time. The Bible never tells about God creating time.

A "sequence of events" is an extension of the same definition of "sequence of moments."

 

I guess it boils down to how you define "time"- semantics.

The name "I AM", in my understanding, means one thing and one thing only: that God is the definition of "existing". We can't say in what way God exists, He simply exists.

That's what I said .

The questions really isn't whether God is "existing in the past, present, future, forever". The question is whether He always existed, exists, and will exist forever or if He exists at all times, at the same time.

Another alternative translation of his name is "I WILL BE THAT I WILL BE." There are linguistic nuances that would be beyond the scope of this conversation.

So, what I meant was the following "A person who believes everything to be pre-destined is more likely to become a theologian". Sure, this is a subjective opinion (though partly based on experience). Exactly as subjective as the reverse, "A theologian is more likely to become a person who believe that everything is pre-destined", which is what (I think that) you try to imply when you say that all theologians are calvinists.

1) People, on the whole, especially Christians, believe in man's free will. Take a poll of your immediate people you know- everyone believes this. Hardly anybody starts with the presupposition that there is no free will.

2) Definitely subjective opinion, may or may not be true. Could be, though.

3) My view is as you propose it- "A theologian is more likely to become a person who believes that everything is pre-destined."

4) My view is not as subjective as yours. The reason for this is due to WHY the theologians become Calvinists. When one studies the scriptures as intensely as a theologian has to, it is the logical conclusion that one steps away with. One does not study the scriptures intensely and come away thinking that man has a way to catch God by surprise.

 

Most Christians don't read the Bible, or they only read it a bit. Even those that read it a lot don't study it, they just read it. It's when one studies it more intensely that these ideas begin to come more to the surface.

BTW, what is the point of praying if everything is pre-destined anyway?

Because Christians are told by Jesus to pray. God acts in the world, but the Church is the "body" of Christ, the Christians are the "hands and feet."

 

-3nigma

[Alessandro17]

Alessandro17's suggestion is not only irrelevant, but very similar to Solipsism as I have mentioned before, and thus, meaningless.

 

It is not "my suggestion", it is how Eastern Religions or Philosophies see "Reality".

If you want to suggest that 500 million Buddhist, one billion Hinduists or hundreds of millions of Taoists (not to count an unknown number of Westerners) are irrelevant, who is the solipsist here? (Dictionary.com, meaning 2).

[3nigma]

It is not "my suggestion", it is how Eastern Religions or Philosophies see "Reality".

I think that he means that those views are not especially relevant to this particular thread topic. The topic presupposes that (1) God is real, and (2) what is the interaction of God's sovereignty and man's free will?

 

Those Eastern views don't operate on the first presupposition, so they don't apply to this thread.

Knowing all this, God can predict with perfect accuracy, what decisions one would make based on who they truly are, inside and out.

I agree with everything that you said. This is the only part that needs lots, and lots, of careful thought.

If someone walks up to you on the street that looks like a crazy man, smells like a crazy man, and talks like a crazy man, and tells you that he can fly, shoot laser beams from his eyes, and walk on water, would you believe him?

 

By your logic, you would have to say "Well I don't know, but it is certainly possible".

 

However, I would feel justified in saying "you are a crackpot, and I don't believe a single word you say".

 

That is why i'm atheist (but technically agnostic).

So... who's the crazy, smelly guy? Jesus?

 

It's 3:30am here in the UK, so as much as I'd like to keep chatting tonight while everyone in online, I have to continue tomorrow.

 

-3nigma