 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
Dwarf
Ferret
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 111
|
 Posted: Sun Jul 27, 2003 11:49 am Post subject: Free will Argument...continued |
 |
|
I also have posted this message in the original thread, but It's not bouncing to the top of the board anyway so I don't reccomend messing with it. So this is my response to Magnum PI for his arguments in the Free Will Argument thread:
| Quote: | The Christian God is defined as a personal being who knows everything. According to Christians, personal beings have free will.
In order to have free will, you must have more than one option, each of which is avoidable. This means that before you make a choice, there must be a state of uncertainty during a period of potential: you cannot know the future. Even if you think you can predict your decision, if you claim to have free will, you must admit the potential (if not the desire) to change your mind before the decision is final.
A being who knows everything can have no "state of uncertainty." It knows its choices in advance. This means that it has no potential to avoid its choices, and therefore lacks free will. Since a being that lacks free will is not a personal being, a personal being who knows everything cannot exist.
Therefore, the Christian God does not exist. |
The pretense of the very existance God, an all powerfull being who knows all, and created everything etc. etc...is the very reason why the above is incorrect. First of all, if there was forever past, is, and will be forever more a being who has power unlimited, then I would expect there to be things about him that I don't understand. Secondly I notice that you used this sentence in your argument that simply cannot fit with the description of God: "It knows its choices in advance." This is all well and good if you expect God to be inside the limits of time. If God created everything, even time, then why should he be? You used the phrase, "in advance." What "in advance" do you have outside of time? Can you comprehend an existance outside of time? To an extent I'm sure you can. But not enough for you to be able to accept the fullness that God is. So why should there be a God? I just proved one of your reasons that God shouldn't exist wrong. But what proof do I have that God does exist? Here it goes: When you see something that is desined, say a shack, a motor, a wheel, or a shoe possibly, you suppose that there was designer behind it somewhere. When you see DNA why should you suppose anything different? Most likely you weren't there to see the designer of the shoe. So why should you have been there to see the designer of DNA? Also people have attempted to create DNA in the environment at which it would have been made if it had been made by accident, but it couldn't be done. Well ofcourse it couldn't it would be the same matter if someone tried building an environment for which a shoe could be made by accident. It can't be done. And why should it be? For a design there is a designer.
I quite seriously find that it makes me feel rather out-of-control because there is a God out there who created me and controls me. I suppose that you, MPI, might feel that way as well if you ever logically accept the fact that God exists. But why should you ever feel in control? Did you even choose to exist? Do the infinite factors that have the power to change you life fall into your control?
So I have no problem accepting the fact that there is a God who controls me. I don't have control and neither do you. So I'm gratefull at least for some control on my life whether I have it or not. So why not simply accept the existance of God not only because it is logical, but also because you need it.
| Quote: | Some people deny that humans have free will; but all Christians claim that God himself, "in three persons," is a free personal agent, so the argument holds.
Others will object that God, being all-powerful, can change his mind. But if he does, then he did not know the future in the first place. If he truly knows the future, then the future is fixed and not even God can change it. If he changes his mind anyway, then his knowledge was limited. You can't have it both ways: no being can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time. |
Sure God can be omniscient and omnipotent at the same time, He's going to be looking a the future from the outside of it anyway. So why should He be controlled by it. You are thinking that God can be held down and limited by time when the very pretense of God that you are arguing against created time.
| Quote: | | A more subtle objection is that God "knows" what he is going to do because he always acts in accordance with his nature, which does not diminish his free agency. God might claim, for example, that he will not tell a lie tomorrow--because he always tells the truth. God could choose outside of his nature, but he never does. |
"God might claim, for example, that he will not tell a lie tomorrow--" Tomorrow? What tomorrow is there to limit God, He doesn't even need to have a tomorrow. God is outside of time. All time is is an existance of those who need to use actions. If all actions in the universe stopped and there was absolutely no movement at all there would be no time. Under the pretensive definition of God he created us and the actions that we use so why should He be limited to those actions and therefore the existence of time??" He shouldn't, and He isn't.
| Quote: | | But what does "nature of God" mean? To have a nature is to have limits. The "nature" that restricts humans is our physical environment and our genetics; but the "nature" of a supernatural being must be something else. It is inappropriate to say that the "nature" of a being without limits bears the same relationship to the topic of free will that human nature does. |
You're right, it is quite inappropriate to say that the "nature" of a being without limits bears the same relationship to the topic of free will that human nature does. A nature for God is not the same as our nature. For every created being there must be an eternal existance. We were created, therefore there must be an eternally existant substance and therefore that substance must have a different structure if it is to never end and to never have begun. I would know that there is something eternal that existed before our universe even if I believed in evolutionary creation that came about without a designer. Why? Because I would ask where the substance of the Big Bang came from. Either the substance was eternal or there was something before it that set it into place that was eternal. Why should an eternal being be limited simply because it has a nature? It shouldn't...because like I said an eternal substance must have different properties than the properties we know of, if it is to be eternal. And we know for sure ,from what I said above, that there must be an eternal substance.
| Quote: | Free will requires having more than one option, a desire to choose, freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.
[If God always acts in accordance with his nature (whatever that means), then he still must have more than one viable option that does not contradict his nature if he is to claim free will. Otherwise, he is a slave to his nature, like a robot, and not a free personal agent. |
You place the free will that we posses on the description of the free will that an eternal being must have. Why does He have to fit under our definitions and limitations? What logical basis could possibly state that? It doesn't make sense that the creator should have to fall under the rules of the created.
| Quote: | | What would the word "option" mean to a being who created all options? |
It would mean that if He chose He could follow those options, and anything else besides "all" options if He wanted. All options to the created is most certainly not the same thing as all options to the creator.
| Quote: | | Some say that "free will" with God does not mean what it means with humans. But how are we to understand this? What conditions of free will would a Christian scrap in order to craft a "free agency" for God? Multiple options? Desire? Freedom? Power? Potential to avoid? |
Like I said when I started, if there is an all powerfull and all knowing being, then we should expect from Him, things that cannot be understood. I, a created being who does not even have control of my own existance, should be able to understand my creator. Again, I know my creator exists because I am designed, and there must be a designer.
| Quote: | | Perhaps desire could be jettisoned. Desire implies a lack, and a perfect being should lack nothing. But it would be a very strange "person" with no needs or desires. Desire is what prompts a choice in the first place. It also contributes to assessing whether the decision was reasonable. Without desire, choices are willy-nilly, and not true decisions at all. Besides, the biblical god expressed many desires. |
"Desire implies a lack, and a perfect being should lack nothing." Desire for a human implies a lack. But, for God, why should it?Firstly God would have to be inside time for your argument to work. He would at one moment be in need and the desire would take place, and then the moment would pass and a next moment would take place when He gained what He needed. There are no moments outside of time. Secondly, you say that we have desires simply because we lack. The definition for Human living is very different from the definition of God, we need consistent supply of resources to even hold on to mortal life. God is already supplied in His immortal life, so all His desire should simply come from who He is or we could not know at all. But why should we know? And God could desire for no reason at all. What logical fault lies in that?
| Quote: | | No objection saves the Christian God: he does not exist. Perhaps a more modest deity can be imagined: one that is not both personal and all-knowing, both all-knowing and all-powerful, both perfect and free. But until a god is defined coherently, and then proven to exist with evidence and sound reasoning, it is sensible not to think that such a being exists. |
No, actually the Christian God is what is required. A god that is not both all-knowing and all-powerfull, not both personal and all-knowing, and not both perfect and free could not be expected to have created the universe, nor could it be expected to have created time. Also, the current definition, existance, and person of God was, is, and always will be able to stand up to the argument you just posed. So there really is no need for the superficial, fake, and insulting god that you just proposed.
MPI, I give you all my respects for your logical abilities and brilliant mind. You continue to amaze me as you compose essay after essay, and endless original ideas. I see your writings and, unfortunately for your attempts, they only continue to confince me of the existance of God. Only such an existance could have created such an intelligent person, and a personal existance such as yourself.
Thank you for posting, I hope to see your reply. I hope that you catch this because it's been such a long time since you started this thread and you haven't gotten any decent replies. I'm sure that by now you must have given up.
Cheers!
-Dwarf |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 7003
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 2:09 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Free will requires having more than one option, a desire to choose, freedom to choose (lack of obstacles), power to accomplish the choice (strength and aptitude), and the potential to avoid the option. "Strength and aptitude" puts a limit on what any person is "free" to do. No human has the free will to run a one-minute mile, without mechanical aid. We are free to try, but we will fail. All of our choices, and our desires as well, are limited by our nature; yet we can still claim free will (those of us who do) because we don't know our future choices.
[If God always acts in accordance with his nature (whatever that means), then he still must have more than one viable option that does not contradict his nature if he is to claim free will. Otherwise, he is a slave to his nature, like a robot, and not a free personal agent. |
I fear you are confusing free will with capability. Free will would pertain to the human's choice to run or not to run, capabiltiy would determine how far and how fast one could run.
You also place a restraint on God in saying He must or must not have free will. God is the source of everything, His will is simply His will, it requires no understanding on our part of choices or lack of choices or predetermined outcomes. His will is neither free nor restricted, it just simply is.
_________________
JP's Mind - my blog
Psa 118:8 It is better to trust and take refuge in the Lord than to put confidence in man. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dwarf
Ferret
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Mon Jul 28, 2003 2:37 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | You also place a restraint on God in saying He must or must not have free will. God is the source of everything, His will is simply His will, it requires no understanding on our part of choices or lack of choices or predetermined outcomes. |
Yes, that is in short basically what I said when I was disproving MPI's quote, but I was also trying to prove why we cannot understand God's existance, and why it doesn't require understanding. And that is basically what the majority of my post was about.
_________________
Dwarf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dwarf
Ferret
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 04, 2003 6:07 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Magum, I know you're there. Are you going to merrit my post with a reply? I thought that I refuted you rather well, but not well enough to keep you from replying completely.
_________________
Dwarf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Lestat de Lioncourt
Cobra
Joined: 03 Apr 2003
Posts: 456
Location: New Orleans, LA
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 2:38 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Dwarf wrote: | | Magum, I know you're there. Are you going to merrit my post with a reply? I thought that I refuted you rather well, but not well enough to keep you from replying completely. |
Magnum is no longer on these boards...there is only Lestat. Hence, no reply from Magnum will be forthcoming.
Lestat
_________________
Cruelty and Violence in the Bible |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dwarf
Ferret
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Mon Aug 11, 2003 4:28 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Lestat de Lioncourt wrote: | | Dwarf wrote: | | Magum, I know you're there. Are you going to merrit my post with a reply? I thought that I refuted you rather well, but not well enough to keep you from replying completely. |
Magnum is no longer on these boards...there is only Lestat. Hence, no reply from Magnum will be forthcoming.
Lestat
|
Ok, Lestat, would you like to give it a shot?
_________________
Dwarf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dwarf
Ferret
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Tue Aug 12, 2003 4:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Come on Lestat! Give it a go! If you can't disprove it then just say so, it's surely much better than not replying at all!
_________________
Dwarf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dwarf
Ferret
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Thu Aug 21, 2003 8:16 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Have I really won this, Lestat?
_________________
Dwarf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dwarf
Ferret
Joined: 19 Apr 2003
Posts: 111
|
| Posted: Sat Aug 23, 2003 8:23 pm Post subject: |
|
|
Lestat, are you going to take this one?
_________________
Dwarf |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
