Quote from Oh_Man

Quote from Sacrieur

Quote from Oh_Man

Quote from Sacrieur

God has free will? Source please.

Omnipotence.

How does free-will follow from being able to do anything? A machine that controls a rocket can launch the rocket, but it doesn't mean it is going to.

If their God is incapable of doing things freely than there is a limit to its power. Which means it is not omnipotent.

First off, you two should cut out this one-liner crap. Make an effort.

Secondly, "not having something" does not imply "incapable of". If God is all powerful but has no free will, it doesn't mean he is incapable of having free will. Just because I don't have a big screen TV right now doesn't mean I'm incapable of getting one.

I don't think God is omnibenevolent, that is, doing good to all people. "Jacob have I loved, Esau have I hated." He is perfectly good though.

MA, what verses are these about babies going to heaven? I'm genuinely interested, it's not something I've studied much.

Quote from Lanthanide

Quote from Oh_Man

@Lanth - It is illogical to tell yourself you believe in something that you know the evidence does not point toward.

Right, I went back and re-read your other posts and you said the same thing. I agree with that.

I initially read your statements not as saying it was illogical, but saying it was bad or making a value judgement. My argument against that is that certain individuals deluding themselves may actually end up with a better life in the long run (see this quite commonly with people who convert to christianity or other religion after a life of crime, for example) or bettering for society at large. But those beliefs would still be illogical, no matter whether they were overall good or bad for the individual/society.

@Oh_Man (or @anyone for that matter), which would you rather have:

• A life where everything you believe in is 100% true and logical, but you hate life and you have to go through hell to get through the day
  
• or a life where not all of your beliefs make sense, some are completely incorrect, but you enjoy every second of every day of your entire life
  

Quote from Vrael

Another type of explanation, is that given any choice, there must naturally be some options which we'll call 1,2 and 3. Now, you'll either choose 1,2, or 3 in this case, and God knows which one you will choose. He already knows which one you'll choose, so which one will you choose? The one that God knows of course. Now, this hasn't limited your ability to choose, has it? He knows your choice, but you can still choose 1,2 or 3 at your will. The idea is that God knows which choice you will make, but never delimits the choice to one option, allowing God to be both impossibly omniscient AND for people to still have free will.

I wouldn't call that a "choice".
If you are meant to do a certain thing, then you only have the illusion of choice, since you didn't really choose it: it was already chosen and thus pre-determined for you.

Quote from Jack[RCDF

MA, what verses are these about babies going to heaven? I'm genuinely interested, it's not something I've studied much.

Here's a few...

Quote from Revelation 20:12

And I saw the dead, great and small, standing before the throne, and books were opened. Another book was opened, which is the book of life. The dead were judged according to what they had done as recorded in the books.

Quote from Deuteronomy 1:39

And the little ones that you said would be taken captive, your children who do not yet know good from bad—they will enter the land. I will give it to them and they will take possession of it.

Quote from Mark 10:14

When Jesus saw this, he was indignant. He said to them, “Let the little children come to me, and do not hinder them, for the kingdom of God belongs to such as these.

Quote from MillenniumArmy

I told you already, what can be discussed with 100% certainty is how to tackle the Bible - what it says, what it means, the author(s) purposes, lessons, themes, etc.

As long as the debaters agree on which translation of the Bible, yes, the Bible may be discussed with certainty. The point I'm trying to make is "if the Bible says something, that statement is not automatically true." If you are discussing "what does the Bible say?" then, as you have said, we can discuss that with relative certainty.

Quote

These we can scrutinize and have a decent debate over so instead of ending your arguments with blanket "how can we know anything for sure" statements it's far more effect for you to find some arguments/scripture/citations that potentially support your what-if theories.

Without concrete proof of the afterlife, we cannot know. If you're asking from a quote from the Mayahana or some other holy document that says "babies have a special Hell", we probably won't find one. Ancient, allegedly-holy documents don't make your argument any more true (unless your statement is something along the lines of "When was John Smith born?"). Otherwise I could claim that any document is inspired by God.

By only discussing the Bible, you are ignoring the Bhagavad Gita, the Mayahana, the Torah, the Quaran, and more. If you wish to only discuss the Christian God, then yes, the Bible says that babies go to heaven. It's clear that you know a lot about the Bible and I know very little. That is why I ask questions, even though the answer might be obvious to people like you.

Of course, if this topic is only to debate "free will and the Christian God," I'll gladly remove myself from the debate.

Quote from payne

Quote from Vrael

Another type of explanation, is that given any choice, there must naturally be some options which we'll call 1,2 and 3. Now, you'll either choose 1,2, or 3 in this case, and God knows which one you will choose. He already knows which one you'll choose, so which one will you choose? The one that God knows of course. Now, this hasn't limited your ability to choose, has it? He knows your choice, but you can still choose 1,2 or 3 at your will. The idea is that God knows which choice you will make, but never delimits the choice to one option, allowing God to be both impossibly omniscient AND for people to still have free will.

I wouldn't call that a "choice".
If you are meant to do a certain thing, then you only have the illusion of choice, since you didn't really choose it: it was already chosen and thus pre-determined for you.

I don't think you understand what is being said, but I could be wrong. Here I will use the modern description of the electron for an analogy. Classically, we think of the electron as a particle, an object with a definite position and momentum somewhere in space. Quantum mechanics tells us that this idea is wrong, the more we know about its momentum the less we know about about the electron's position, and vice versa. Despite this, we can agree that there is an electron, somewhere at least, and that it will be somewhere and have some momentum. For some reason people have no problem accepting this: that an electron can be both a particle and a wave, but when it comes to God being omniscient and people having free will they suddenly decide to apply different reasoning. Let's assume there are only 3 spots in the whole universe and we have 1 electron, just like we had 3 options and 1 choice to make. Naturally it must be in one of those spots, but we cannot say which spot it will be in, we can only give some approximations: theres a 10% chance it's in spot 1, a 50% chance in spot 2, and a 40% chance in spot 3, for example. We never delimit the electron to one spot, despite the fact we know it is in one spot. Likewise, if we extend this analogy to God, we can say he never delimits our choice, despite the fact he already knows our choice. Of course, if we were to actually observe this electron, its waveform would 'collapse' into one of the 3 spots, and likewise if God were to say "you shall pick option 3" he would delimit our choices and take away our free will by predetermining the choice. So long as he never delimits the options however, there is still a choice to be made and we still have free will, despite his omniscience.

I had something else to say but I forgot, sorry.

Edit: remembered what I forgot
Oh, the other thing I'd mention is has to do with God and time. When we say God knows our choice "before" we make it, we assume we know enough about time to know that that matters. For example, making a choice may affect the entire timeline of our existence, past present and future, despite the fact we have no way of knowing if it affects the past, or how the structure of time really exists. God may simply exist outside of time, or at all times, or at no times, in such a way that our free will isn't hindered because he does not know our choice "before" we make it, but merely "knows" that we make it.

Quote from Vrael

Quote from Oh_Man

Quote from Sacrieur

Quote from Oh_Man

Quote from Sacrieur

God has free will? Source please.

Omnipotence.

How does free-will follow from being able to do anything? A machine that controls a rocket can launch the rocket, but it doesn't mean it is going to.

If their God is incapable of doing things freely than there is a limit to its power. Which means it is not omnipotent.

First off, you two should cut out this one-liner crap. Make an effort.

Lol. I'm replying to one-liners with one-liners. And why should I make an effort, I've never met a theist who would even entertain the notion that God has no free will. Yet here I find two non-believers who are trying to put a case forward for it, even though all three of us know that we're just discussing fiction.

Quote from Sacrieur

The limit is not with the power itself, it's with the wielder.

Quote from Vrael

Secondly, "not having something" does not imply "incapable of". If God is all powerful but has no free will, it doesn't mean he is incapable of having free will. Just because I don't have a big screen TV right now doesn't mean I'm incapable of getting one.

So God doesn't have free will but is capable of having it. Uh huh. Then this means he has free will. It's painfully simple. Omnipotence is absolute power, no constraints, no impossibilities. It's like saying God voluntarily locks himself in a cage... but he still has the key to his release. You either have free will, or you do not. No amount of semantics on your behalf can change this very basic logic.

Quote from Raccoon

@Oh_Man (or @anyone for that matter), which would you rather have:
A life where everything you believe in is 100% true and logical, but you hate life and you have to go through hell to get through the day
or a life where not all of your beliefs make sense, some are completely incorrect, but you enjoy every second of every day of your entire life

What is this? 1984? I can't just doublethink myself into believing stuff I know to be incorrect. I just can't. It's intellectual suicide. It's insanity. This is practically what it means to be insane, to have beliefs that are far out of line with what we actually know about reality.

And then there's this odd dichotomy you have presented us with... As I already said, what sort of person needs to lie to themselves to get through the day? Why is reality so discomforting that you have to make up a fairy tale in order to live with it? And how would it even work, lying to yourself? Obviously you know deep down that you are incorrect, no matter how much you repress it.

And I can't answer your question, because it's really a false dichotomy. I am quite happy living life with the full knowledge that when I die I cease to exist, that life has no objective meaning, and that there is no benevolent caretaker watching over us.

I'll take the truth over a lie any day.

Quote from Oh_Man

And why should I make an effort

Quote

Lite Discussion Rules

1. Attitude and Atmosphere. Be respectful and courteous of each other at all times. Flaming, or Ad hominem, slander, and trolling are all unacceptable. Do not make verbal attacks on others. Do not demean or antagonize others. Do not add superfluous sarcasm or mocking to your posts. Do not post in ways that are disruptive to discussion. The Lite Discussion forum is supposed to have an atmosphere of relaxed discussion; in participating you need to contribute in a positive fashion to this sort of environment.

2. Be Reasonable. Not everyone is going to agree with you, and your opinion isn't the center of the universe. It's encouraged to share your opinion, though it is discouraged to assert your opinion as right without any sort of reasoning or evidence. Nobody wants to hear you say they are wrong over and over without bringing anything new to the discussion.

3. Sources and Evidence. If something is beyond the scope of "common knowledge", then it is encouraged to provide a source link to that knowledge. If a claim or reference to some sort of fact or knowledge is so outlandish that it is inhibiting discussion, sources may be required by the forum moderators.

4. Keep Posts Readable. 1337 speak, and other forms of internet dialect won't be tolerated if they inhibit or send the topic into disarray. If your post isn't readable due to a lack of grammar, punctuation, or other post format related issues then your post may be deleted to preserve the topic's flow.

5. Do Not Spam. Do not post useless or irrelevant information. This old adage applies here: A wise man speaks when he has something to say, a fool speaks because he has to say something. Do not post non-sequitors or silly jokes unless they are in good taste and contribute to the discussion. Try not to take a discussion off topic. If you and others wish to pursue the off-topic tangents of a discussion, you are welcome to open a new topic. Avoid restatements. Unless there has been a genuine misinterpretation of your post, reasserting your point without sufficent additional content, evidence or argumentation will neither make your point true nor contribute to discussion.

6. For New Topics. When opening a new thread, please ensure that your topic is developed. A new topic should provide a solid foundation for discussion. New topics require the topic starter to provide enough information in their post to foster strong discussion. Topics with a single link and the sentence "Watch this video and comment" will not be acceptable.

That is why.

Quote from Oh_Man

Yet here I find two non-believers

Don't put words in my mouth, or sacrieur's, or anyone elses for that matter.

Quote from Oh_Man

So God doesn't have free will but is capable of having it. Uh huh. Then this means he has free will. It's painfully simple. Omnipotence is absolute power, no constraints, no impossibilities. It's like saying God voluntarily locks himself in a cage... but he still has the key to his release. You either have free will, or you do not. No amount of semantics on your behalf can change this very basic logic.

There are no semantics involved, you have simply skipped a step in your logical process in order to arrive at the conclusion you wished for. God being omnipotent without free will neither constrains his power nor provides an impossibility he cannot overcome. If God voluntarily locks himself in a cage and has the key to his release, this does not change that fact that God is locked in a cage. Neither does the theoretical capability to have free will change the fact that God has no free will. (If he happens to have no free will, that is).

Quote from Pr0nogo

As for dubious, undocumented occurrences, the birth of Jesus of Nazareth is about as undocumented as it can get. The Bible says that the king ordered every first-born son of every citizen in Nazareth and the surrounding cities to be killed. This is recorded NOWHERE. You'd have thought people would have sat down and said "we ought to record it into history that today our king told us to kill all of our first-born sons. Derp!"

That is a good point for the debate, but is there any recorded history at 0 BC other than art? Did any of the art reflect the king? Im not sure...

Quote

There are no semantics involved, you have simply skipped a step in your logical process in order to arrive at the conclusion you wished for. God being omnipotent without free will neither constrains his power nor provides an impossibility he cannot overcome. If God voluntarily locks himself in a cage and has the key to his release, this does not change that fact that God is locked in a cage. Neither does the theoretical capability to have free will change the fact that God has no free will. (If he happens to have no free will, that is).

Hmmm, what step was that?

Lol this is a joke. You're practically tripping over yourself with rhetoric now... "Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints." God has no constraints, none. Even self-imposed constraints can be abolished at any point in time, at a whim. You either have free will, or you do not. There is no middle ground. Please, just climb out of your trench already...

Quote from Bolshevik09

That is a good point for the debate, but is there any recorded history at 0 BC other than art? Did any of the art reflect the king? Im not sure...

Not familiar with the Greek and Roman historians, I see.

The single most damning evidence that the bible is not inerrant. http://bible.cc/joshua/10-13.htm

This is something that actually would have been recorded by every culture. There is no record of it happening with any culture.

Actually, www.biblestudymanuals.net/joshua10.htm
Egypt, Babylon, Peru, China, and more all have histories and myths involving days standing still or running backwards; some, such as the Chinese account of Emperor Yao, coincide with the time of Joshua and are astronomically accurate to what would have happened in China of the sun was changed over in Israel.

Quote from Oh_Man

Quote

There are no semantics involved, you have simply skipped a step in your logical process in order to arrive at the conclusion you wished for. God being omnipotent without free will neither constrains his power nor provides an impossibility he cannot overcome. If God voluntarily locks himself in a cage and has the key to his release, this does not change that fact that God is locked in a cage. Neither does the theoretical capability to have free will change the fact that God has no free will. (If he happens to have no free will, that is).

Hmmm, what step was that?

You went immediately from the idea that omnipotence requires no constraints to the idea that a God with no free will is constrained in some way and therefore not omnipotent, without showing in the interim how not having free will constrains God's powers in some way.

Quote from Oh_Man

Lol this is a joke. You're practically tripping over yourself with rhetoric now... "Free will is the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints." God has no constraints, none. Even self-imposed constraints can be abolished at any point in time, at a whim. You either have free will, or you do not. There is no middle ground. Please, just climb out of your trench already...

You appear to simply support my case here, but I'll allow you another chance to explain yourself better if you desire, before I make any response to it.

Secondly, you're the one throwing rhetoric around. "Please, just climb out of your trench already..." is rhetoric, irrelevant, and has nothing to do with the issue of whether or not a God with no free will can be omnipotent. If you wish to hear some rhetoric from me, I would be glad to indulge you, but it would have to be through some other medium as it isn't appropriate for our discussion in this forum.

I already said how, because by not having free will God is incapable of making an action freely. This is a constraint.

You then tried to counter by saying God can release himself of this constraint at any time, using my own cage example as an analogy. I then said this was rhetoric/semantics because if he is capable of releasing the constraint then he already has free will.

It is very simple.

A computer is capable of performing many functions on its own, and I think we can both agree it has no free will. So why then does God being capable of releasing himself from a cage or any other function God can perform imply that he has free will? How is it that you link the "capability to perform a task" to "the ability of agents to make choices free from certain kinds of constraints." Are you saying performing a task requires that a choice first be made to perform that task? If so, why? Lightning strikes the ground, yet I don't think clouds have free will, or ever decide to begin the task of making lightning strike the ground.


Stop the nonsense as well. I am well aware of your desire to 'win the crowd', as you yourself have made known, which is all statements like "It is very simple" are intended or useful for. I don't play those games here. Accuse me of being unable to understand something "very simple" on battle.net or in some other medium if you wish, but not here.

Because your contrasting non-sentient behaviours to sentient ones. The computer or lightning strike doesn't have any consciousness, or any ability to make any choice whatsoever. God, being a sentient being (albeit a fictional one, yes sigh I can't believe we're discussing this) has that driving its actions.

Quote from Oh_Man

God, being a sentient being (albeit a fictional one, yes sigh I can't believe we're discussing this) has that driving its actions.

So in essence you're assuming God has free will to begin with, as an assumption.

Quote from Oh_Man

Quote from Sacrieur

God has free will? Source please.

Omnipotence.

The entire point of my discussion is that "omnipotence implies free will" is wrong. You need to start from assuming omnipotence to be true and then show it implies he must have free will in order to validate your claim that started this whole discussion. As I said,

Quote from Vrael

you have simply skipped a step in your logical process in order to arrive at the conclusion you wished for.

By assuming God has free will you're circumventing the entire process of proof and skipping directly to the conclusion. This is typically known as begging the question.

If you're no longer interested in validating your claim and wish to discuss the implications of some other claim, or that you never really meant to claim omnipotence implies free will, that's fine as well. Just lets be clear about what we're saying here, I feel somewhat trolled.