20 May 06
Originally posted by HalitoseI was going to bring this up - you beat me to it. If god is outside of time, I guess that means that every instant exists at the same time for god, your past, present and future? But god also does the free will thing. That would imply there must be billions of alternate universes that god is also omnipresent in, which represents all of those possible futures, presents and pasts, no?
Think of it this way:
God is outside of time -- so he sees everything inside time like it was the present.
20 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzWhy would it imply billions of alternate universes? There are already billions of potential choices we could make in this one. Even though there are billlions of choices available we only need one of them because we can only make one choice at a time. If you go into a supermarket there are millions of combinations of choices you could make , but since you are confined to only making one of them you only need one supermarket , not millions of alternate ones.
I was going to bring this up - you beat me to it. If god is outside of time, I guess that means that every instant exists at the same time for god, your past, present and future? But god also does the free will thing. That would imply there must be billions of alternate universes that god is also omnipresent in, which represents all of those possible futures, presents and pasts, no?
20 May 06
Originally posted by chronicmanIt does not say he travels in time . It DOES say he stands outside time and is eternal. It is this Biblical , eternal quality of God that enables him to know everything about our lives , not some psychic ability to 'predict' pre-determined events. You need to think what it means for God to be outside time. What you call future , past , present is all 'now' for him. I know it's a mind twister but so is quantum physics. The principle is quite simple really but thinking about it is wierd because we live in time and imagine God looks along the timeline from the past into the present like we do. Whereas infact he looks at it sideways as it were. He already knows what you will do tomorrow NOT because he predicts it but because he is already in tomorrow watching you do whatever you freely chose to do. The time travel analogy clearly shows how freedom of will and knowing what someone will do are compatable.
I keep being told to consider things about God that God has not told us to consider about him.
Why would I assume God travels through time. There is no mention of this anywhere in the bible.
The bible doses say God knows everything. The bible doses say GOD has given man freewill.
When you apply them together one has to be false. I am missing something ...[text shortened]... o be pointed out to me. When someone comes across it in the bible let me know where I missed it.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
20 May 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterI can only assume that scottishinnz was thinking of the "other-worlds theory" in which possible futures exist as independent universes. Thus, a person at any point in time might choose several actions, though only one of them can exist in each universe.
Why would it imply billions of alternate universes? There are already billions of potential choices we could make in this one. Even though there are billlions of choices available we only need one of them because we can only make one choice at a time. If you go into a supermarket there are millions of combinations of choices you could make , but since ...[text shortened]... fined to only making one of them you only need one supermarket , not millions of alternate ones.
20 May 06
We have limited free will. I believe our lives are pre determined up to a point.
At times in our lives we will have decisions to make, not simple ones like left or right, but important ones, like running in the path of an oncoming car to save a child or not etc.
These are what I call .defining moments'. These are the only decisions that are not made for us. In these cases we have free will.
Our lives are like a series of paths with forks, the forks are the defining moments.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
20 May 06
Originally posted by saffa73We have limited free will. I believe our lives are pre determined up to a point.
We have limited free will. I believe our lives are pre determined up to a point.
At times in our lives we will have decisions to make, not simple ones like left or right, but important ones, like running in the path of an oncoming car to save a child or not etc.
These are what I call .defining moments'. These are the only decisions that are not made f ...[text shortened]... e will.
Our lives are like a series of paths with forks, the forks are the defining moments.
How can something be predetermined up to a point? If we accept God is omniscient then the our lives are determined completely. If you accept that your life is partly dtermined, then you imply that at some point in your life, you could do multiples actions. So what made you choose one of those multiple actions. If your life is partly determined you imply that nothing made you do either. Thus your actions would be random.
Our lives are like a series of paths with forks, the forks are the defining moments.
In all your examples, somethig must have caused you to act in such a way. So it would more like travelling down a single path with no forks.
I dont believe you understand the implications of your argument. You suggest that to an extent our actions are indeterminate or partly determined or predetermined up until a point. However, while this might entail free will it is nonsensical because it precludes any moral responsibility. If you say that at time t, I could have done X or Y, and the defining action would be X, there must be a reason for you to choose X over Y or the otherway around. This reason would exclude alternative actions and contradict a partial deterministic attitude. If you deny a reason, then you are condemned to randomness (since nothig causes you to do X or Y - including yourself!). This would not reaaly allow for a "defining moment".
21 May 06
Originally posted by chronicmanGod gave us free will because God is a God of love. You cannot have love if you do not have both parties possessing the ability to reciprocate love one to another. Does God know who will love him back you may ask? Yes. Does this mean we have no free will, no. God can give us free will but still know where that will lead. If this were not the case, we sould not have porphesy in the Bible. If God's creation never chose to reject him you might think this would make his creation flawless and perfect. However, you could make the arguement that God did not really give us the free will to reject him if no one ever chose to do so could you not? So, the best case scenerio is what we have now. Some accept him and some reject him. Now no one can argue that the choice was made for them.
I would like to thank everyone for there comments thus far, I have been given a lot to ponder, and that’s what I was after
21 May 06
Originally posted by knightmeisterWrong. If free will is truely free and god exists at all points in time simultaneously, then it is an absolute logical requirement that universes in which each one of those choices is made differently exists. If this isn't the case, then only one universe exists, and there are no free choices.
Why would it imply billions of alternate universes? There are already billions of potential choices we could make in this one. Even though there are billlions of choices available we only need one of them because we can only make one choice at a time. If you go into a supermarket there are millions of combinations of choices you could make , but since ...[text shortened]... fined to only making one of them you only need one supermarket , not millions of alternate ones.
21 May 06
How about we try this one on for size.
I believe in free will. I believe it is the moral existence of a creation of a morally perfect God. Perhaps due to the attributes of God (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) I can not logically explain the will of God. Logical explanation is dependant upon an ability to understand. I can not understand the infinite. I simply trust in it.
21 May 06
Originally posted by OmnislashCome on Omni, we all know you're not one to shy from a challenge! Can't understand the will of God? Rubbish. This sounds a lot like an "if I can't explain it, I don't need to / not meant to". That's the kind of thinking that I most despise, and is one of religions uglier heads as far as I'm concerned.
How about we try this one on for size.
I believe in free will. I believe it is the moral existence of a creation of a morally perfect God. Perhaps due to the attributes of God (omnipotence, omniscience, etc.) I can not logically explain the will of God. Logical explanation is dependant upon an ability to understand. I can not understand the infinite. I simply trust in it.
21 May 06
1 edit
Originally posted by scottishinnzNo sir, it is basic rational. If one can not observe a thing one can not understand it. Would you assert otherwise?
Come on Omni, we all know you're not one to shy from a challenge! Can't understand the will of God? Rubbish. This sounds a lot like an "if I can't explain it, I don't need to / not meant to". That's the kind of thinking that I most despise, and is one of religions uglier heads as far as I'm concerned.
Edit: Not to say that we do not wish to understand it, or observe it. Simply that since we can not, it remains a mystery.
21 May 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzCan you tell me why it is an 'absolute logical requirement' . Why does the idea of only one universe existing mean that there is no potential for others to exist? You have yet to explain this sweeping assumption.
Wrong. If free will is truely free and god exists at all points in time simultaneously, then it is an absolute logical requirement that universes in which each one of those choices is made differently exists. If this isn't the case, then only one universe exists, and there are no free choices.
You have written your post using a particular set of words in a particular order. Could you have written it differently? Just because you chose to write this particular set of words and it is only these words that exist in your post does not mean that a different set of words could not have existed. All you need for freedom is the POTENTIAL for different choices but you don't need all these choices to ACTUALLY exist , only the ones you actually make.
Your argument seems circular and relies on an debatable assumption.