Free Will

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
81

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Then again maybe god being outside of time isn’t the same as knowing what will happen. [/quote]You’re gittin closer, but I really wanna stay on track with Cortes for now. Think about whether God can foreKNOW an uncertainty. Also when the bible says people are foreknown, the original language strongly carries the notion of intimacy. Not that He saw our future like I see somebody on TV, but that He KNEW us before creation like I know my wife.
[/quote]

Sometimes I think he purposely made us just smart enough to know that we don’t know.

“As for me, all I know is that I know nothing.”
[/quote]

I agree with this except I would add “made us smart enough to know everything can be known through him.”

Without higher guidance, our knowing is merely hands on experience and speculation and it is by nature hit and miss experimentation with errors, suffering and loss included in the results.

82

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Before starting, I should note that this question arose from a conversation between Tirib and myself and a few of the other members in a thread I no longer remember. I bring it up here now not to push a point (and not solely because Tirib just embarrassed me by reminding me I’d scooted out without answering his question how many months back), but because that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence.

So, my questions, if you are willing to tackle them, are these:

  1. Where does free will originate?
    [/quote]
    Originate? In a temporal sense it didn’t, it has always existed as it is a metaphysical entity. Running regression on it in a contingency line, as everything it originated with the Uncaused-cause. But freewill’s contingency lies with consciousness.
    But I don’t know really.
    Unless you are asking from a religious perspective then I can propose that the ultimate conscious being, God created itâ?¦

I see no paradox at all. Material determinism requires physical existence. Freewill, not having a physical countenance, is not bound by the rules and laws that govern physical matter. Choice is the master of freewill, not matter or physical laws.

[quote]
And as a bonus, related offshoots and issues as well as attempts to answer why it exists at all are more than welcome.

I understand the question has been touched upon in this thread and that, and I apologize if I missed it, but at the time of this writing I cannot find a dedicated thread covering this particular topic.

So, have at it. [/quote]
Showing that it exists is hard enough. Stating why is darn near impossible. Even from the religious perspective, there is no reconciling why God would have chosen to make conscious beings that can choose otherwise. I guess there is no fun in being loved if you’re forced.

83

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]ephrem wrote:

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Free will does not originate from anywhere. It is merely an idea that our actions are driven by our own rational capacities.

One exhibits a free will just by choosing to act or not act.[/quote]

Succinct. I like it.[/quote]

But wrong. “choosing” isn’t a display of free will.[/quote]

Correct, the issue with freewill isn’t the choice made, it’s the perpetual ability to have chosen otherwise. ← That is what it all hinges on.

84

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Can a being that is all powerful create something he doesn’t have absolute control of? (can he make a rock so big he canÃ??Ã?¢??t lift it?) If he doesn’t control it or didn’t intend absolutely everything, he isn’t all powerful.
[/quote]

He does have absolute control over his creation. He simple chooses, uses his free will to not to interfere at the moment, or at any given moment.

I see it as leading by example.
[/quote]

If he knows what will happen when he creates us, aren’t we pre-determined? And if he willingly gives up authority, is he all powerful?

The only way I see free will is if he created us not knowing what we would do, But that is contradictory to the notion of an all powerful god.

Then again maybe god being outside of time isn’t the same as knowing what will happen. [/quote]

Absolute power is not arbitrary. Absolute weakness masquerading as power is.

There is a huge difference between being in a relationship with an authoritative person and an authoritarian person.

If you are powerful you have self-mastery ( absolute self control; and consequently no need to master/control others.) and you know that you will know what you need to know when you need to know it ( absolute confidence; and by consequence no need to dominate/use others. ).

85

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:<<< Then again maybe god being outside of time isn’t the same as knowing what will happen. [/quote]You’re gittin closer, but I really wanna stay on track with Cortes for now. Think about whether God can foreKNOW an uncertainty. Also when the bible says people are foreknown, the original language strongly carries the notion of intimacy. Not that He saw our future like I see somebody on TV, but that He KNEW us before creation like I know my wife.
[/quote]

Believing Godly omniscience, being able foreknow is a foregone conclusion. Is that happening is the question that is not answered by creating a paradox out of it. That (a paradox) is the least likely scenario because that creates more problems then it solves. There are better ways to solve the problem without succumbing to a paradox.

You should only fall in to paradoxical thinking if there is no other way to solve or reconcile the issue. Reason? Paradoxes are just unsolved problems; and therefore it is not solution, but a perpetuation of the problem.

86

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
If the universe is in fact a closed system, i.e. if since the exact moment of the Big Bang there has been no force or energy outside of it exerting influence upon it (such as as supra-natural God), and if (regardless of whether or not we can discern it) the unfolding of events is governed absolutely and unerringly by a rigid and unchanging system of physical laws, then the free will of the individual cannot exist.

In other words, everything that has ever happened and will ever happened HAD to happen as ordained by the precise nature, velocity, heat, mass, etc. of the event of matter’s inception. Every thought in your head and the exact manner and timing of every breath you have ever drawn was written in stone since the beginning of time.

Obviously, the premises are two giant “ifs”, and either or both of them could well turn out not to be. Theology and quantum physics certainly cast heaps of doubt on them. But it is a possibility, and an interesting thought.[/quote]

I conditionally concur, but only if two additional assumptions are true:

  1. The original system didn’t contain autonomous agents
  2. The components of the original system couldn’t subsequently combine or transform to create autonomous agents[/quote]

Agreed. It could be argued that these caveats are contained in the original premises, however, because autonomy cannot exist in a world left completely alone (the first premise) and in which all events, including the electro-chemical signals responsible for human thought and emotion, are necessary consequences of earlier events (the second premise). Follow back along the trail of cause-and-effect physical phenomena to which you owe your being and you will eventually in all cases reach a cause outside of your mind/body which you could never have controlled. Follow those causes back to the beginning of time and you will find that all that ever was was necessarily so from the moment of creation.

If, I repeat, the first two premises are accepted. And they certainly don’t have to be.[/quote]

Autonomy could exist in a world left completely alone if it was one of the foundational components of that world to begin with.

Also, we don’t know that non-autonomous elements can’t combine to create autonomous elements. It seems unlikely, but it’s not impossible. Maybe it works in the same way that non-alive elements can combine to create something that is alive.

87

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Free will exists. The human brain has evolved as a complex decision making machine. It is precisely because of the fact that we have to make so many choices in order to survive that it is so complex. The concious mind’s default axiom is that the choices you make directly effect the outcome of your life.

You have constant proof that free will exists every waking moment of your life. To ignore this is stupid. And if you wish to take the stance that all decisions are pre-ordained, since we are fully rational and intelligent beings with strict mechanisms for making decisions that will always pick the same answers given the same circumstances, you are ignoring the fact that humans are NOT always rational or intelligent and quite capable of making very stupid mistakes that almost defy sanity and logic, and if given the same decision twice could easily pick a different choice without knowing the future or having the benefit of hindsight.[/quote]

Perfect example of someone who has no idea what free will is, but probably has the same idea as 99% of people who talk about it. No one is saying you can’t make choices bro. [/quote]

Determinism and choices are perfectly compatible right? Free will isn’t the ability to make choices? Just because you’ve read some philosophy books does not mean you understood whats in them BRAH. If you want to make a point, then articulate it. And if you want to spout some “free will is an illusion” compatibilist crap that you read on a cereal box, then get me some xanax first.[/quote]

lol

first of all i articulated several points i wanted to make in previous posts. and you don’t even understand what a compatibilist is yet you keep throwing the term around. they think determinism is compatible with free will, so they wouldn’t say “free will is an illusion” like you posted lol.

what a basic error and proves my point about people who know nothing about a subject eager to give their opinion on it, while being too lazy and intellectually dishonest to at least learn the fundamentals of the issue.

fyi the categories are: compatibilists vs incompatibilists. the IC’s are broken down in to what’s called libertarians (not to be confused with the political group) who think we have free will and thus the world is not determined, and the NFWGs (the no free will guys, yes this is the techincal term lol) who say obviously that there is no free will, and are silent on whether or not determinism is true.

I’m a NFWG which makes me an incompatibilist.

The idea that you chose, for instance, what cereal to eat and so you have free will misses the issue entirely. It’s similar to people who kick a wall and declare that therefore the wall exists, ignoring the more fundamental question of the external world (e.g., if we’re in the matrix, you can kick the wall but it’s just a computer simulation you’re in, the wall doesn’t really exist. in reality, you’re sitting in a fucking goo being harvested for body heat and your sense perceptions are being controlled by a computer program)

The other problem with debating free will is that 90% of people are committed to it before they even know the first thing about it, because of theological reasons.
[/quote]

Ironically, the particular issue of free will in philosphy is one I have spent a great deal of time studying. If “articulating your points” is posting the work of someone else, and then picking out one particular part to cut and paste from, then make a sweeping generisation about everyone else posting in the thread BEFORE they’ve even posted, then yes you articulate them very well, and no-one could fairly accuse you of being arrogant and closed minded.

And I find it amazing that you claim to be a compatibilist yet do not fully understand the implications of your supposedly chosen philosphical position. “free will is an illusion” is a neat way of summarising the bulk of classical compatibilisms arguments up, since thats what its conclusions amount to. I suggest you pay more attention in class if you want to get those credits.[/quote]

I always liked the whole, ‘freewill is an illusion’ crap, it cracks me up. Really because the people making such a claim cannot get the fact that determinism has every bit of a chance of being illusory as the claim that freewill is.
Basically, the fact that both have equal probability of either being an illusion, or a reality should nullify the value of making such an argument in either direction. Since neither can be known, such line of logic is perfectly useless in the discussion.

88

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
If the universe is in fact a closed system, i.e. if since the exact moment of the Big Bang there has been no force or energy outside of it exerting influence upon it (such as as supra-natural God), and if (regardless of whether or not we can discern it) the unfolding of events is governed absolutely and unerringly by a rigid and unchanging system of physical laws, then the free will of the individual cannot exist.

In other words, everything that has ever happened and will ever happened HAD to happen as ordained by the precise nature, velocity, heat, mass, etc. of the event of matter’s inception. Every thought in your head and the exact manner and timing of every breath you have ever drawn was written in stone since the beginning of time.

Obviously, the premises are two giant “ifs”, and either or both of them could well turn out not to be. Theology and quantum physics certainly cast heaps of doubt on them. But it is a possibility, and an interesting thought.[/quote]

I conditionally concur, but only if two additional assumptions are true:

  1. The original system didn’t contain autonomous agents
  2. The components of the original system couldn’t subsequently combine or transform to create autonomous agents[/quote]

Agreed. It could be argued that these caveats are contained in the original premises, however, because autonomy cannot exist in a world left completely alone (the first premise) and in which all events, including the electro-chemical signals responsible for human thought and emotion, are necessary consequences of earlier events (the second premise). Follow back along the trail of cause-and-effect physical phenomena to which you owe your being and you will eventually in all cases reach a cause outside of your mind/body which you could never have controlled. Follow those causes back to the beginning of time and you will find that all that ever was was necessarily so from the moment of creation.

If, I repeat, the first two premises are accepted. And they certainly don’t have to be.[/quote]

Autonomy could exist in a world left completely alone if it was one of the foundational components of that world to begin with.
[/quote]
No it cannot. Autonomy is impossible, because to prove it, would render the said autonomous no longer autonomous. In other words, if an autonomous object caused itself to be known, then it can not be autonomous anymore for it crossed the line of being causal.

You’ve tried this before, but you have only made a claim, not an argument. Backup your claim.

[quote]
Also, we don’t know that non-autonomous elements can’t combine to create autonomous elements. It seems unlikely, but it’s not impossible. Maybe it works in the same way that non-alive elements can combine to create something that is alive.[/quote]

You cannot have causal properties create non-causal properties. That is just plain logically wrong. It does not and cannot happen. Once something is caused or causes, it is not autonomous.

89

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:
First, “free will” is one of most vague concepts in all of philosophy (along with “possibility”). It has no intrinsic importance; it’s talked about because it’s thought that free will is necessary for moral responsibility. So I’ll just talk directly about MR.

Second, it’s not conceptually coherent (not possible) for anyone to be morally responsible. Here’s a non-technical argument that gives the intuitive thrust of why:

  1. You do what you do, in any given situation, because of the way you are.

  2. So in order to be ultimately responsible for what you do, you have to be ultimately responsible for the way you are â?? at least in certain crucial mental respects.

  3. But you cannot be ultimately responsible for the way you are in any respect at all.

  4. So you cannot be ultimately responsible for what you do

3 is true because the way you are is totally a result of your nature and nurture. no need to decide the exact contribution of each (nature vs nurture debate), just to realize that the way you are is a result of their sum total.

Another argument:
To be responsible for how you are now, there must have been an earlier you who is responsible for the way you are now. But for that earlier you to be responsible, there must be an even earlier you that is responsible for the earlier you that is responsible for how you are now, etc. This is an infinite regress which can’t happen for someone that hasn’t existed forever.
[/quote]

Good post. I remember thinking along these lines back in college. If god created me, isn’t god ultimately responsible for the choices I make?

Mormons have an interesting belief that circumvents this criticism. They believe people have always existed as “intelligences”', and that god only organized these intelligences into spirits. It’s weird, but it does allow ultimate responsibility for one’s choices.

To my earlier post, the only other possibility I can think of is that autonomy can be created from non-autonomous elements. Maybe it’s tied to metacognition and self-awareness.

90

Pat, what does being able to cause have to do with being an autonomous agent? Autonomy means independence of action, and has nothing to do with whether or not those actions affect other things.

91

Pat, what does being able to cause have to do with being an autonomous agent? Autonomy means independence of action, and has nothing to do with whether or not those actions affect other things.

92

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:

[quote]joyfull_beast wrote:

[quote]MassiveGuns wrote:
Free will exists. The human brain has evolved as a complex decision making machine. It is precisely because of the fact that we have to make so many choices in order to survive that it is so complex. The concious mind’s default axiom is that the choices you make directly effect the outcome of your life.

You have constant proof that free will exists every waking moment of your life. To ignore this is stupid. And if you wish to take the stance that all decisions are pre-ordained, since we are fully rational and intelligent beings with strict mechanisms for making decisions that will always pick the same answers given the same circumstances, you are ignoring the fact that humans are NOT always rational or intelligent and quite capable of making very stupid mistakes that almost defy sanity and logic, and if given the same decision twice could easily pick a different choice without knowing the future or having the benefit of hindsight.[/quote]

Perfect example of someone who has no idea what free will is, but probably has the same idea as 99% of people who talk about it. No one is saying you can’t make choices bro. [/quote]

Determinism and choices are perfectly compatible right? Free will isn’t the ability to make choices? Just because you’ve read some philosophy books does not mean you understood whats in them BRAH. If you want to make a point, then articulate it. And if you want to spout some “free will is an illusion” compatibilist crap that you read on a cereal box, then get me some xanax first.[/quote]

lol

first of all i articulated several points i wanted to make in previous posts. and you don’t even understand what a compatibilist is yet you keep throwing the term around. they think determinism is compatible with free will, so they wouldn’t say “free will is an illusion” like you posted lol.

what a basic error and proves my point about people who know nothing about a subject eager to give their opinion on it, while being too lazy and intellectually dishonest to at least learn the fundamentals of the issue.

fyi the categories are: compatibilists vs incompatibilists. the IC’s are broken down in to what’s called libertarians (not to be confused with the political group) who think we have free will and thus the world is not determined, and the NFWGs (the no free will guys, yes this is the techincal term lol) who say obviously that there is no free will, and are silent on whether or not determinism is true.

I’m a NFWG which makes me an incompatibilist.

The idea that you chose, for instance, what cereal to eat and so you have free will misses the issue entirely. It’s similar to people who kick a wall and declare that therefore the wall exists, ignoring the more fundamental question of the external world (e.g., if we’re in the matrix, you can kick the wall but it’s just a computer simulation you’re in, the wall doesn’t really exist. in reality, you’re sitting in a fucking goo being harvested for body heat and your sense perceptions are being controlled by a computer program)

The other problem with debating free will is that 90% of people are committed to it before they even know the first thing about it, because of theological reasons.
[/quote]

Ironically, the particular issue of free will in philosphy is one I have spent a great deal of time studying. If “articulating your points” is posting the work of someone else, and then picking out one particular part to cut and paste from, then make a sweeping generisation about everyone else posting in the thread BEFORE they’ve even posted, then yes you articulate them very well, and no-one could fairly accuse you of being arrogant and closed minded.

And I find it amazing that you claim to be a compatibilist yet do not fully understand the implications of your supposedly chosen philosphical position. “free will is an illusion” is a neat way of summarising the bulk of classical compatibilisms arguments up, since thats what its conclusions amount to. I suggest you pay more attention in class if you want to get those credits.[/quote]

I clearly say I’m an incompatibilist in the text you even quoted. Either you’re a troll or have zero reading comprehension. Either way I’m wasting my time in this thread.

93

[quote]Cortes wrote:

[quote]forlife wrote:
It might help if someone would define what they mean by free will.

Is free will the capacity to act without being influenced by anything external to the person?

Is it even possible not to be influenced by anything external to the person?

And is the person himself not a composite of influences outside his control?[/quote]

I tried to cover this in the OP by asking if man has the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence.As we are contingent beings, I don’t have any illusions that we would ever be able to exert influence without having been first influenced. My questions are trying to get at the rest of it.

For the purpose of this argument, I guess I am asking if humans possess some spark of non-contingence or, possibly even, omni-contingence with which they may exert their will and ultimately be held accountable for their actions.

In short, are we men, or wet robots?[/quote]

What is your take on the compatibilist idea that it’s possible for free will and total determinism to coexist?

I tend toward the noncompatibilist camp, as it seems you do by your post. Saying that man can do what he wills, but he can’t will what he wills, dodges the deeper question. What determines what we actually will, and do we have any say in the matter?

94

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Before starting, I should note that this question arose from a conversation between Tirib and myself and a few of the other members in a thread I no longer remember. I bring it up here now not to push a point (and not solely because Tirib just embarrassed me by reminding me I’d scooted out without answering his question how many months back), but because that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence.

So, my questions, if you are willing to tackle them, are these:

  1. Where does free will originate?

  2. How does one resolve the paradox of free will within a seemingly deterministic universe (if one is atheist), or its existence in a universe every subatomic particle of which has been created by an omniscient, omnipotent God?

And as a bonus, related offshoots and issues as well as attempts to answer why it exists at all are more than welcome.

I understand the question has been touched upon in this thread and that, and I apologize if I missed it, but at the time of this writing I cannot find a dedicated thread covering this particular topic.

So, have at it. [/quote]
Free will of course originated with God. God created spirit beings in heaven long before he created man and these spirit beings were granted free moral agency, the privilege and responsibility of making a personal decision as to the course they will take.
When God said at Genesis 1:26 “let us make man in our image according to our likeness,” this means that man was created with qualities like those of God and the other spirit beings including love, wisdom, justice, power and free will. God didn’t create man like a machine that can perform only what it is designed or programmed to do. And he didn’t create us like animals that are primarily guided by instinct. Instead we can make personal decisions and choose between doing right and wrong. I’ll discuss the second question in another reply.

95

[quote]forlife wrote:
Pat, what does being able to cause have to do with being an autonomous agent? Autonomy means independence of action, and has nothing to do with whether or not those actions affect other things.[/quote]

“He who causes to become”

96

[quote]mse2us wrote:

[quote]Cortes wrote:
Before starting, I should note that this question arose from a conversation between Tirib and myself and a few of the other members in a thread I no longer remember. I bring it up here now not to push a point (and not solely because Tirib just embarrassed me by reminding me I’d scooted out without answering his question how many months back), but because that earlier conversation led me to do something I normally do not have to do: To admit I could not explain the basis or origin for one of my core beliefs: that there exists and man possesses free will and the ability to determine the arc of his earthly existence.

So, my questions, if you are willing to tackle them, are these:

  1. Where does free will originate?

  2. How does one resolve the paradox of free will within a seemingly deterministic universe (if one is atheist), or its existence in a universe every subatomic particle of which has been created by an omniscient, omnipotent God?

And as a bonus, related offshoots and issues as well as attempts to answer why it exists at all are more than welcome.

I understand the question has been touched upon in this thread and that, and I apologize if I missed it, but at the time of this writing I cannot find a dedicated thread covering this particular topic.

So, have at it. [/quote]
Free will of course originated with God. God created spirit beings in heaven long before he created man and these spirit beings were granted free moral agency, the privilege and responsibility of making a personal decision as to the course they will take.
When God said at Genesis 1:26 “let us make man in our image according to our likeness,” this means that man was created with qualities like those of God and the other spirit beings including love, wisdom, justice, power and free will. God didn’t create man like a machine that can perform only what it is designed or programmed to do. And he didn’t create us like animals that are primarily guided by instinct. Instead we can make personal decisions and choose between doing right and wrong. I’ll discuss the second question in another reply.

[/quote]

My problem with this line of reasoning is that it dodges the real question. If god is 100% responsible for creating us, including our values, self-control, desires, etc. then how can any decision we make not be the direct result of god?

97

[quote]Cortes wrote:
2. How does one resolve the paradox of free will within a seemingly deterministic universe (if one is atheist), or its existence in a universe every subatomic particle of which has been created by an omniscient, omnipotent God?

And as a bonus, related offshoots and issues as well as attempts to answer why it exists at all are more than welcome.

I understand the question has been touched upon in this thread and that, and I apologize if I missed it, but at the time of this writing I cannot find a dedicated thread covering this particular topic.

So, have at it. [/quote]

Your second question will take a lot longer to answer. Many people believe that God is omniscient meaning that he is all-knowing and that he foresees and foreknows all future actions of all his creatures, spirit and human. This belief advocates reason that God’s divinity and perfection require that he be omniscient, not only respecting the past and present but also regarding the future. According to this concept, for him not to foreknow all matters in their minutest detail would be evidence of imperfection. And that he even foreordains such actions or even predestinate what shall be the final destiny of all his creatures, even doing so before they have come into existence.
Let’s think about this for a second and the implications of these views.

First, the omniscient view.
This concept would mean that, prior to creating angels or man, God exercised his powers of foreknowledge and foresaw and foreknew all that would result from such creation, including the rebellion of one of his spirit sons, the subsequent rebellion of the first human pair in Eden, and all the bad consequences of such rebellion down to and beyond this present day. This would necessarily mean that all the wickedness that history has recorded (the crime and immorality, oppression and resultant suffering, lying and hypocrisy, false worship and idolatry) once existed, before creation’s beginning, only in the mind of God, in the form of his foreknowledge of the future in all of its minutest details. If the Creator of mankind had really exercised his power to foreknow all that history has seen since man’s creation, then the full weight of all the wickedness thereafter resulting was deliberately set in motion by God when he spoke the words: “Let us make man.” Does that sound reasonable? This goes completely against what James states at James 3:14-18 which states:
“But if you have bitter jealousy and contentiousness in your hearts, do not be bragging and lying against the truth. 15 This is not the wisdom that comes down from above, but is the earthly, animal, demonic. 16 For where jealousy and contentiousness are, there disorder and every vile thing are. 17 But the wisdom from above is first of all chaste, then peaceable, reasonable, ready to obey, full of mercy and good fruits, not making partial distinctions, not hypocritical. 18 Moreover, the fruit of righteousness has its seed sown under peaceful conditions for those who are making peace.”

The predestination or foreordain view:
This concept states that God has predetermined and set ones life course from eternity in such a way that an individual cannot alter or change it. Meaning that every choice a person makes has already been determined by God. So that means that if a person turns out to be bad or wicked this person’s life course was determined by God before that person was even born. And yet God will still hold this individual accountable, judge and even punish this person for something that he had no control over. So that would mean that the bad life course that billions have taken throughout history was actually caused by God and the adverse judgment that they receive was determined by God long before they were even born. Does that sound reasonable? Does that make sense? Is this just? Absolutely not! This goes against God’s very nature. One of God’s main attributes is justice. Psalms 33:5 states that God is “a lover of righteousness and justice.” The fact that God stuck to his own standard of justice regarding the redemption of mankind by means of his son shows that God has a perfect sense of justice. Deuteronomy 19:21 states: “Soul will be for a Soul.” So in order to replace Adam and cover the perfect human soul or life that Adam lost, another perfect human life that corresponded in value with Adam was needed. The fact that God stuck to this at great cost to himself shows how much justice means to him.

The fact that God gives warnings and guidance all throughout the Bible shows that God has not predestined ones life path before that person was born and that he does not choose to know the outcome of every individual born. Below are some scriptures that support this.
Ezekiel 33:11 states:
"11 Say to them, ‘“As I am alive,” is the utterance of the Sovereign Lord Jehovah, “I take delight, not in the death of the wicked one, but in that someone wicked turns back from his way and actually keeps living. Turn back, turn back from your bad ways, for why is it that you should die, O house of Israel?”’
How sincere would that statement be if God already knew who would turn back from bad? Instead God sincerely urges all to turn back from bad and keep living as he did with the Israelites.
Logically, he could not do this if he foreknew or predestined that they were individually destined to die in wickedness.

2 Peter 3:9
“Jehovah is not slow respecting his promise, as some people consider slowness, but he is patient with you because he does not desire any to be destroyed but desires all to attain to repentance.”

If God already foreknew and foreordained millenniums in advance precisely which individuals would receive eternal salvation and which individuals would receive eternal destruction, then how meaningful would such ‘patience’ of God be and how genuine would his desire be that ‘all attain to repentance.’

Also, the concept of predestination would mean that all of the heinous acts that have been committed throughout history would have been a direct result of God predetermining ones life course. So that would me that when a little girl is kidnapped, raped and killed by a predator that girls destiny which is death at the hands of predator was determined by God long before the girl was born. That would also mean that the acts of Hitler and Stalin and the result of their acts on the millions of victims was predetermined by God. Again, does that make sense? Does that sound like a God of love? Absolutely not! The only thing this belief does is slander God and attribute all the bad things that happens to God.

According to the Bible God has the power to foreknow future events but he doesn’t always choose to exercise or use this power. For example, God knew that regarding Isaac’s twin sons Esau and Jacob, that Jacob would inherit the birth right which should have been Esau’s since he was born first. God also foreknew that a Persian named Cyrus would be the one to conquer Babylon and then eventually free the Jews in 537/36 B.C.E. But there are also instances in the Bible that points to an examination by God of a current situation and a decision made on the basis of that examination. At Genesis 11:5-8 God is described as directing his attention earthward, surveying the situation at Babel, and, at that time, determining the action to be taken to break up the unrighteous project there. After wickedness developed at Sodom and Gomorrah as recorded at Genesis 18:20-22, 19:1, Jehovah advised Abraham of his decision to investigate (by means of his angels) to “see whether they act altogether according to the outcry over it that has come to me, and, if not, I can get to know it.” At Genesis 18:19, 22:11,12, God spoke of ‘becoming acquainted with Abraham,’ and after Abraham went to the point of attempting to sacrifice Isaac, Jehovah said, “For now I do know that you are God-fearing in that you have not withheld your son, your only one, from me.”

I could go on and on but since this is very long I’ll close with this thought. The prospect of everlasting life is presented in the Bible as a goal for all people, something that is attainable. To offer something so desirable to another person on conditions known beforehand to be unreachable is both hypocritical and cruel. After urging his listeners to ‘keep on asking and seeking’ good things from God, Jesus pointed out that a father does not give a stone or a serpent to his child that asks for bread or a fish. Showing his Father’s view of disappointing the legitimate hopes of a person, Jesus then said: “Therefore, if you, although being wicked, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more so will your Father who is in the heavens give good things to those asking him.”

The teaching of God using his omnipotence all the time and that he predetermines one’s life course is not a Bible teaching. This belief slanders God and attributes all the bad things that happened throughout history to him. This false teaching is one of the reasons people are turned off by God.

98

All choices are predetermined they just can’t be predicted in advance?

Seems fishy to me.

99

If all choices are predetermined then rationality cannot exist.

100

Mse2us, I appreciate your post. Your answer seems to be that god is benevolent, so he couldn’t possibly be omniscient and omnipotent. I agree they’re incompatible, but am surprised you believe this.

If god chooses not to know everything, he is by definition not omniscient.

If god isn’t ultimately responsible for everything that happens in the world, he is by definition not omnipotent.

So just to confirm: you believe god is neither omniscient nor omnipotent?