Free will cancels out the idea of god

Halcyon....

YOU WROTE: I think I'm starting to understand what you say, but for some reason I't's still cloudy. Unfortunately I find that having a simple idea and an easy way of expressing it doesn't help in conveying the idea to me unless it can be explained in terms of my own ideology...People get frustrated rather easy with me for it. I'm very interested in addressing that particular idea. A question first; when you said "clusters," did you mean to convey the meaning that ideas often come to several distinct and unrelated people at the same time?

Such would be a likely result, but by clusters I meant kind of like a cloud moving in. I am speculating, of course. But history seems to reveal the essence of a given era as similar to a weather pattern. The hippy generation, for example, was in many ways brought an over-all reevaluation, with one sweeping concept following another. The war, the drugs, the race issue, equal rights, and so forth.

Some seem to get the idea that a foreign enemy of America organizes an underground movement that perpetuates uneasiness and criticism, and maybe there is some of that, but I tend rather to think that some of this seeming grouping of something different, whether it be a noteworthy invention or a social thing, is like rain clouds forming from evaporating water, which I would compare with individual contributions of thought patterns becoming so strong that they form a force. Or, some more dramatic changes form more like a tornado or a hurricane, either of which would entail a more complex pattern, and these might be compared with universal energies mixing with the aforementioned individual contributions.

As I see it, we were somewhat asleep to what was developing in American society in the fifties, so wham! The new pattern came, something like a pendulum, (pardon me while I mix my metaphors), and dramatically shook up the status quo. The long flowered hair on the braless, loosely dressed women mocked the stuffy, uptight support, and tiny waisted, can-can bottomed skirts of the fifties. In similar contrast were the men’s often unattended long hair, and scruffy bearded faces, with the clean faces that had for so long lived beneath crew cuts and mohawks. This went to still another extreme of tight pants and tops, worn by both sexes in the seventies. This is more or less accurate, and suffices for my purpose. The ideas that come to us almost must come in …I will say -some kind of either predetermined and/or mutually perpetuated manner. Thus, I would argue that our will is in many ways subject to the era in which we live.

YOU WROTE: Truths being as subjective as everything else, like everything else, has potential to be observed in as many different states as there are consciousness' to observe them.

You seem to be talking about scientific finding. There are universal laws, that even science and religion agree upon. It is a truth that we need air to live. If later on we did not need air to breathe, this would in no way change the truth of the fact that we NOW need air to live.

YOU WROTE:Every individual has their own standards by which to determine something as being true or untrue, and so every truth an individual holds has the potential to be proven untrue should certain standards be met.

Your last phrase is weak. Certain change of standards prevailing would not make a former something necessarily untrue. If you change the standards, then you have changed the premise. Right?

YOU WROTE: I don't see how the view you expressed and the one I expressed would be incompatible.

I do not see how they could be. eg, I say, “There is only furniture in that room.” And you say, “There are also people in that room!”

These are not compatible statements.

However, if I say, “There is furniture in that room,” and you say, “There are also people in that room,” these are compatible, because both are true. Therefore, if science says, “There are signs of life on Mars,” and then they later say, “There is no life on Mars today.” These may both be true. To say there is a sign of life on Mars, and then later say there has never been any signs of life on Mars, not only extinguishes the first statement, but one of them is false. One is true, whether it is decided or not! So, my argument is that making a general statement that something is true until it is proven wrong is absurd.

Can you see my point?

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, but it still remains that everything has certain probability of being proven untrue. No matter how concrete something appears to be, there is nothing that science can ever prove to be true objectively. There is no such thing as 100% pure objective fact, only ideas supported by evidence. So the probability of it being untrue may be incredibly low, 0.0000000001% perhaps, but nothing can ever be said to be 100% true. Since the probability of something being untrue remains a characteristic of everything we hold to be true then it follows that it is only true because it has yet to be disproven, for had it been disproven, it would not be considered true. Does it seem like I'm just making the same argument, or am I shedding any new light on the issue? Sometimes it's hard for me to tell and so it takes a few tries.

I wasn't saying that the standards had to be changed in order or to render a truth untrue, but that the standards for proving something untrue had only to be met.

I do understand the point you're making, I can completely understand why it makes sense from your perspective, and I can also see why my point wouldn't make sense to you, and vice versa.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I think we're both looking at the idea of "truth" in two different ways. I think you see "truth" as an established objective fact, whereas I see the idea of objective fact as an impossibility and instead consider it as a probability. Is this a correct deduction?

Like I said, no truths, just ideas supported by evidence....

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

But if we have no free will then there is no decision at all which is what I'm trying to say! Free will cannot have limitations, there is no such thing as partial free will. There is either absolute free will, the ability to make our own decisions or choices. Or there is no free will at all, no ability to make our own decisions or choices. There is no midway, either you can choose your own actions or you can't.

Of course we are. What do you think your belief is based on? It is based strictly on ideas presented to you from the bible, from its scriptures and God's words. We are being judged by how we follow the scriptures and how we follow god's laws, of course, recently there seems to be exceptions. Priests saying some things are okay and others aren't, even though it doesn't say so in the bible... Who here is to decide what is allowed and what is not?

No. We have a choice (or think we do) in have faith with the bible and god, it is our measurement of belief in christianity. I have no faith in the bible which dubbs me an athiest, you obviously have faith measuring less than a size of peanut seed, which raises another question. Someone who has the right amount of faith will live forever in the kingdom of god. Is this decision or a priority? If we will ALWAYS be happy in heaven is this really our choice or god's?

That would be foolish, no matter how much of a saint you are.

Do we? Tell me why.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

There is a midway if you consider that there are biological 'instincts' or 'restrictions' that guide a certain part of your decision making.

 

But that only plays a part on your concious, ultimately you can reject these instinct or restrictions.

 

HALCYON WRITES: I think you see "truth" as an established objective fact, whereas I see the idea of objective fact as an impossibility and instead consider it as a probability. Is this a correct deduction?

Probably so. So! Stop thinking like that! Just kidding you, Halcyon. Actually, I appreciate reading your comments....later..pmt

 

I will get be with you VOTORX, and am looking forward to it; but right now I have to go.

gOOD POInT: SPURIOUS-MONKEY!

PMT

 

Vortex wrote: There is either absolute free will, the ability to make our own decisions or choices.
[Absolute? I am not much for absolutes.]
Vortex: Or there is no free will at all, ………There is no midway, either you can choose your own actions or you can't.
[What actions, Vortex?]
Vortex: What do you think your belief is based on? … based strictly on ideas presented to you from the bible,…its scriptures and God's words.
[It is innate in man to believe in God.]
Vortex: We are being judged by how we follow the scriptures and …god's laws, of course, recently there seems to be exceptions. Priests saying some things are okay and others aren't, even though it doesn't say so in the bible... Who here is to decide what is allowed and what is not?
[Who indeed? I am not Catholic, nor am I looking to man for answers. I do not really accept the idea of clergy over the laity. Where you look is up to you, of course, just as any old prejudices that might have led you into such statements…are also evidence of your free will. We do have a choice in how we think! What we cherish, appreciate, hold close to our hearts; or, what we reject, discard, throw away. ]
Vortex: . . . you obviously have faith measuring less than a size of peanut seed . . . [And you obviously speak of that which you know not. Tell me what you are aiming for here. Is it to find out what I think, or for you to tell me what I think? Quoting scripture? If so, it is “mustard seed.”
[If we will ALWAYS be happy in heaven is this really our choice or god's? [I do not understand your question here, buddy. It makes sense to me that energy never dies and I think it will take more than the demise of this body to get rid of me. (Smile)]
Vortex:That would be foolish, no matter how much of a saint you are.
[Oh, come now. The Bible has much symbolism, and many parables. Almost everyone knows this.]
Vortex quoting pmt…
“ I am convinced that we are free to choose what we take with us, and to a great degree, what we leave behind. ”

Response by Vortex: Do we? Tell me why.
[Okay, I will try, as this could be a wonderful and significant example of free will.]

From pmt: While we cannot take with us anything material, it seems to me that we may take the essence of those things, which we personally value. This came to me when I bought the statement: “It is not what one has that makes one happy, but what one appreciates.” Why else would we be admonished to lay up for ourselves treasures that moth and rust cannot corrupt, nor thieves can break in and steal?” (Probably paraphrased, I did not look it up) As I pondered further, it made sense to me that not only could we take these things with us, but also that it was inevitable.

I had many times contemplated the importance of appreciation. It then dawned on me that the essence of that which is appreciated can be taken with us. When you leave someone, how you made that one feel is what will be remembered. When we leave a beautiful place, we hold on to the picture of it in our minds, and recall this picture, because it makes us happy to do. What we learn and what we appreciate, and what we hold in our hearts is part of who we really are, and part of our development, and it makes sense to me that what we treasure will go with us. Once we truly appreciate something, the removal of that thing will not remove our appreciation, and why? …because the essence of that which we treasure has become a part of us. Therefore, whatever gets its proverbial teeth into us, leaves its essence with us, and will go with us when we leave this world. Perhaps it is for these reasons that we should avoid extremes and obsessions. Perhaps this, if it be so, would be a very good reason for pursuing our purpose, for being moderate in all things, for developing our appreciation for the things God has left in our care, lest we miss the blessings they were designed to afford.
To me this makes some sense, but I seldom discuss it in this much detail. There is so much we do not know, but this has given me a reason to breathe more deeply. pmt

 

When we enter heaven we are suppose to be eternally happy, who's choice is this?

Any action

Where do you think christianity would be right now if we didn't have the bible?

On the contrary, it could be my destiny (such a dramatic word).

Even you have to admit it would be foolish to believe everything the bible has to say, no matter how religious you are.

It seems to me you are no longer addressing my arguments but rather continously going back to the same idea of what you believe and how you feel on the topic. It's all good but you fail to present a contradiction. Lets say there is free will, if there is then there is no god (orinal post).

 

Votorx, you turkey!

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

I went to all that effort to answer your question about a very personal point of view, (see last portion of my last post), so how can you come back like I am not addressing your post.

You say when we enter heaven, we are supposed to be happy, and whose choice is that? ....You seem to be assuming, first of all, that I agree with your statement, guy; I do not necesssarily! Therefore, I am not the one to tell you whose idea it is, especially when I do not necessarily believe it is anyone's idea. Get it?

You also spoke about priests, and I replied that I was not Catholic. You were saying that they changed their minds about what is sinful, well I think I said something to the effect that the protestants have as well.

I believe I have answered your arguments as well. Now, whether you like, or really pay attention to the answers, is entirely another matter. Perhaps, someone else would please you more, Vortex.


FIRST, i WROTE THIS: “ but I do not take everything in the bible literally, ” AND YOU REPLIED: That would be foolish, no matter how much of a saint you are.

NOW, YOU SAY: Even you have to admit it would be foolish to believe everything the bible has to say, no matter how religious you are.

What is your point? Those are contradictory statements. Further, "how reigious I am," or "how much of a saint I am," was not your initial arguement, nor will I get into that.

You wrote: "Lets say there is free will, if there is then there is no god (orinal post)."

Oh no! Let us say that there is a God, and that "free will" is a matter of interpretation.

Cheers! .............pmt

 

I know, I realize that, but a serial killer can also say that the people who he killed deserved to die but it doesn't mean its true, it's just a very personal point of view.

But that's the point! You may not be catholic but the religion really is based on the word of the few who interpret the bible. At one point their word was belived so widely that they could do just about anything saying it was divine. If I based my arguements on what I felt I wouldn't be getting anywhere, just like this discussion.

Please re-read what I said. You were saying of how you don't take everything in the bible literally, and I said that it would be foolish to take everything in the bible literally, basically agreeing with you. Then you replied by saying, "Oh, come now. The Bible has much symbolism, and many parables. Almost everyone knows this ". So I was just repling by saying that even YOU would have to admit that it would be foolish to believe EVERYTHING the bible has to say no matter how religious ANYONE is (I said you as pronoun). You contradicted yourself when I was just agreeing with your original idea.

Of course not, I am simply stating that it is a very common belief that when we enter heaven we will experiance eternal happiness.

Again, just say this sentence outloud to yourself, Even you have to admit it would be foolish to believe everything the bible has to say, no matter how religious you are.
I could have said Even you have to admit it would be foolish to believe everything the bible has to say, no matter how religious they are, but sentences like this are usually greeted with a, "who's they?".

 

VORTEX: You are incorrect; the order was as I wrote it; see below.

“ FIRST, i WROTE THIS: “ but I do not take everything in the bible literally, ” AND YOU REPLIED: That would be foolish, no matter how much of a saint you are.

NOW, YOU SAY: Even you have to admit it would be foolish to believe everything the bible has to say, no matter how religious you are. ”


Please re-read what I said.

I did. Now, you read it, because you apparently have the discussion reversed in your mind.

You know what? You really assume way too much. You seem to be stuck on your former religion, and I really do not know what your point is. I have said several times that I do not take the entirely Bible literally. If you have a problem with this, I do not really care. That is my stand. Think what you will.

 

I personally think it's reasonable to assume that you don't take everything in the bible literally.

I was replying to the fact that you don't take everything in the bible literally. I was just agreeing with the fact, and stating that it would be foolish to take everything in the bible literally no matter how much of a saint you are.

And then you replied once again with a:

Suggesting that you DO infact take everything in the bible literally, or atleast to a certain extent.

So once again I reply:

When I said this I am simply replying with your statement saying, once again, that it would be foolish to believe everything that bible has to say, no matter how religious you or anyone else is.

These both statements contradict each other, at one point your saying that you DON'T take everything in the bible literally, and then replying to my quote only suggests that you do take everything in the bible literally or atleast to a certain extent again. Now either you were being argumentative or you really did contradict yourself.

I can see that many people on this forum don't think to well...maybe it was a bad idea to share my thoughts here. Such empty contradictions and discussions arise here to quickly. Oh well, I learned my lesson, thank you for being such a good teacher P.M.T

 

MY STATEMENTS: “ [Oh, come now. The Bible has much symbolism, and many parables. Almost everyone knows this.]
“ but I do not take everything in the bible literally, ”

YOUR RESPONSE: These both statements contradict each other,

NO! They do not. Try to understand this, okay. I mean, really try.
In the first statement, I was making the point that the whole Bible was never intended to be literal. I may not have made that clear, but all I said was that the Bible has much symbolism and many parables, in answer to a statement you made, which I notice you did not show. Thus, the Bible has much symbolism and parables; or, to put it another way, Symbolism and parables are not literal. Okay? THEN, on another post in answer to another of your statements, which you did not bother to show, I wrote "but I do not take everything in the bible literally. Not the parables, and not the symbolism, and just may disagree on which are what. Some of things I consider symbolism my be taken literally by others. In fact, I this is true. I consider Hell to be symbolic and many Christians do not.

Don't be telling me that I am not thinking! Your opinion of the way people think will lack credibility when you offer statements like that. Perhaps it would do you well to think a bit yourself, then possibly the "many people on this forum who do not thing so well" will make more sense to you. Suppose?


Here is the rest of your presumptuous comment.

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

"at one point your saying that you DON'T take everything in the bible literally, and then replying to my quote only suggests that you do take everything in the bible literally or atleast to a certain extent again. Now either you were being argumentative or you really did contradict yourself."

No, I was trying to respond as best I could to clarify.

 

If that's the case then you were being argumentative. Its that simple, I agreed with you and you felt like contradicting me in some way. Think mathematically for a second. You said you don't take everything in the bible literally. Then I agree with you, then you try to contradict me. If I were agreeing with you and then you try to argue with my statement then you are just contradicting yourself, tansitive postulate. You were being argumentative and that's final.

 

Votorx: Sorry you feel that way, but it your right.

chow!

 

and as God already knew before creating human that human would sin and then goes about creating the universe such that human must sin – sort of makes the whole punishing human thing quite sadistic on gods part. Evil really – no wonder Satan wanted out.

(Heck human didn’t even know what the hell sin even was and/or entailed but regardless, old lovely Big-G punished human for committing sin anyway

Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

It’s like making a computer program that must do such and such and then getting mad at the computer when it does!)