In the beginning ...

[thestoat]

Does that mean there might be a cure for theism??

[thestoat]

That might be true but only Jesus took away the sins of the world.

Mithras was credited with taking away the sins of the world. As was Osiris and a host of others. In fact you can check out the story of Osiris here http://www.sacred-texts.com/egy/ebod/#translation, which is the Egyptian Book of the Dead, written 3000 years before Christ. You might be able to find some nuance that is original to Christ though ...

[Crackpot]

Religion not tied to a "state" or more to the point a religion meant to exist outside of a distinct people/group.

[MajGenl.Meade]

Andrew

“If it was known yesterday (or has always been known or is known to be part of the eternal state of affairs) then yes. But if it was (etc.) not known, how was it inevitable? I could have died between yesterday and 11 a.m. today”

Red herring plus “if it was not known” begs the question. What was posited is that today God observes your exercise of free-will choice at 11 a.m. tomorrow in picking X (not Y) – although you didn’t choose X until 10:59 next day - therefore you didn’t die beforehand. X might be your decision to commit suicide, your free will choice that God observed yesterday (from infinity and beyond as Buzz would perhaps say).

”God's knowledge of the occurrence of a thing means that the non-occurrence of that thing is absolutely impossible”. Absolutely. God knows that at 11 a.m. tomorrow you will freely choose X. The result of your exercise of free choice is “what” is known. The choice itself is not compelled necessarily. Had your free will choice been Y, then that is what God would have known.

“Most importantly, it always was (from our temporal perspective) absolutely impossible”. But that knowledge is not from our temporal perspective is it? It is from God’s eternal perspective, which is entirely different.

”The absolute impossibility of my not choosing Y negates the possibility of my free will with respect to the "choice" of X or Y. I am merely a marionette”. If one omits free will from the first premise then of course there is no free will in the conclusion.

Tomorrow I will freely choose either X or Y
God certainly knows which one I will choose
Therefore whatever choice I will choose to make is what will happen and is what He knew I would choose.

(Assuming free will) you have a choice of whether to write back and what to write back. God knows what you will choose to do but you only know once you have decided. He knows what your decisions (emphasise “your decisions”) will be. They are inevitable to Him always – they are inevitable to you only after you enact them. The knowledge is the same for both – only the timing of the knowledge is different. This is not illusion (a claim which negates rational discussion).

The toast spread example was addressed to Big RR who has God and Free Will in his armoury (I believe) but argues that God’s foreknowledge negates free will. His position therefore leads logically to an argument either that God doesn’t exist or that God is not all-knowing – limited godliness. This is also a negation of Judeo-Christian doctrine as is the idea that God purposely “hides his eyes from knowledge” (which you correctly pointed out). Those who argue thusly are trying to explain a perceived (though non-existent) paradox by concentrating on the event rather than the act of decision.

That foreknowledge necessarily equals predestination is an error – some Christian free-willies can’t think out of that box. Foreknowledge equals foreknowledge and that is all. As Geisler pointed out, it’s not really “fore” knowledge anyway. It is observing whatever will be/is/has been. God isn’t micro-managing my choice of Marmite (thanks Gob!), simply observing my choice with or without keen interest. There is no conflict between God’s knowledge and free will. You do indeed inevitably choose whatever it is you will choose.

This might be easier for my African friends. For them time flows not toward the future but toward the past – we are all becoming ancestors, living out lives toward history.

Love
Meade

PS Sue: presupposition "God is made up". Presuppose something else? Anyhoo this is not agonising; this is fun.

[loCAtek]

Does that mean there might be a cure for theism??

Like a cure for homosexuality; do you cure a natural state?

[Andrew D]

Scripture is quite clear -- one might well say emphatic -- that God chose who would be saved before he created any of us:

Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who has blessed us with every spiritual blessing in the heavenly places in Christ, just as He chose us in Him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before Him in love, having predestined us to adoption as sons by Jesus Christ to Himself, according to the good pleasure of His will, to the praise of the glory of His grace, by which He made us accepted in the Beloved.
In Him we have redemption through His blood, the forgiveness of sins, according to the riches of His grace which He made to abound toward us in all wisdom and prudence, having made known to us the mystery of His will, according to His good pleasure which He purposed in Himself, that in the dispensation of the fullness of the times He might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven and which are on earth—in Him. In Him also we have obtained an inheritance, being predestined according to the purpose of Him who works all things according to the counsel of His will, that we who first trusted in Christ should be to the praise of His glory.
In Him you also trusted, after you heard the word of truth, the gospel of your salvation; in whom also, having believed, you were sealed with the Holy Spirit of promise, who is the guarantee of our inheritance until the redemption of the purchased possession, to the praise of His glory.

(Ephesians 1:3-14 (NKJV) (emphases added).)

If Christian doctrine is true, the "decision" whether to accept salvation or not is far and away the most important "choice" any of us will ever make. And yet, as plainly stated in the Bible, God chooses who will be saved; we do not. And if "He chose us" is not clear enough, there is also the predestining; to predestine is to "decide in advance that something will happen or that someone will have a particular fate." (Compact Oxford Dictionary (3d ed. (rev.) 2008).)

And God's, not our, doing the choosing is not limited to salvation. On the contrary, God "works all things according to the counsel of His will," not ours. And that includes people's doing bad things. Why did Pharaoh not let the Israelites go? Because God hardened Pharaoh's heart. (See Exodus 7:13, 9:12, 10:20, and 10:27.)

Of course, that is not purely a function of God's omniscience. But according to Christian doctrine, God is not merely omniscient. As stated in the Bible, Everything that happens happens because God makes it happen. So who is responsible for everything that happens? God, who makes everything happen? Or we who -- because God makes everything happen -- necessarily do not make anything happen?

The idea that human beings have free will is flatly counter-scriptural. I continue to be amazed that any Christian can believe it.

-------------------------

By free will, I mean that when I am confronted with the options of choosing to do X or not choosing to do X, it is possible that I will choose to do X, and it is possible that I will not choose to do X. (And, of course, it is not possible that I will neither choose to do X and not choose to do X, and it is not possible that I will both choose to do X and not choose to do X.) If God knows that I will choose to do X, then there is absolutely no possibility that I will not choose to do X. In that case, the statement "when I am confronted with the options of choosing to do X or not choosing to do X, it is possible that I will choose to do X, and it is possible that I will not choose to do X" is false. And if that statement is false, the assertion that I have free will is false.

The assertion that "God knows that at 11 a.m. tomorrow you will freely choose X," convenient as it doubtless is, is self-contradictory. God's knowledge that I will "choose" X absolutely negates the possibility that I will not choose X, and the absolute impossibility of my not choosing X absolutely negates the possibility that I have free will with respect to X or not X.

The whole business of God's knowledge as omnitemporal or extratemporal or whatever is irrelevant. If I have free will, it operates in the temporal universe. And if God is omniscient, even if his knowledge does not operate, per se, in the temporal universe, it is nonetheless extant in the temporal universe. That is, God knows within the temporal universe that I will choose to do X just as much as God knows outside the temporal universe that I will choose (or am choosing or have always chosen or whatever) to do X. Or are you saying that God's omniscience does not extend to the temporal universe?

[thestoat]

The idea that human beings have free will is flatly counter-scriptural. I continue to be amazed that any Christian can believe it.

I guess that given that, all atheists would have an automatic pass to Heaven since we'd have had no free will in becoming atheists

[loCAtek]

Well, in your next life, you maybe a devote monk

[thestoat]

Well, in your next life, you maybe a devote monk

I'd rather be a rock star - I need a credit card that's got no limit and a big black jet with a bedroom in it

[thestoat]

Like a cure for homosexuality; do you cure a natural state?

I wasn't serious, Lo

[Sue U]

PS Sue: presupposition "God is made up". Presuppose something else? Anyhoo this is not agonising; this is fun.

All right, then Meade, why is the God you envision, with whatever attributes you ascribe to Him/Her/It, any less a human invention than the conception of Yahweh as the tutelary deity of the Hebrews that permeates the Five Books of Moses and the Prophets? What makes your idea any more real or valid than prior conceptions of deities (e.g. Baal-Haddad, Asherah, Ahuramazda, Osiris/Isis, Marduk, etc.) What makes it any more real or valid than contemporary polytheism such as Hinduism, or fundametally "non-theistic" (or at least not god-focused) religions such as Buddhism and Jainism?

[MajGenl.Meade]

Hi Sue

It's just a matter of which presupposition one cares to choose. You start by believing that man made gods (which is of course true with the small 'g') and I start with God making man. The fact that the presupposition of God makes more sense of all things than the opposite view is a point in its favour. God said it; that's that; I believe it. Neither one of us can prove there is or there isn't God. I have my Arminian hat on today

Cheers
Meade

[thestoat]

The fact that the presupposition of God makes more sense of all things than the opposite view is a point in its favour

What makes you say that, Meade?

[oldr_n_wsr]

I don't normally participate in this subject of debate (although I do read them all) but I do have to ask the question regarding this statement:

The fact that the presupposition of God makes more sense

Throughout history man has made many things into Gods, the moon, the sun, the stars. He has been shownt hat they are nothing more than natural "things". Who/whats to see we will not discover that our current understanding of God (whatever that is individually) will not be discovered to be just something made by/from the universe like our moon/sun/stars (aka Gods of old)?

[loCAtek]

Perception O-n-W, and humility. We know and accept there are forces greater than ourselves and our humanity. We try to label or associate them with things heavenly, like the sun and the moon, since they were once mysterious and unobtainable. That association was symbolic; the symbol can change the sense of oneness remains.

[thestoat]

Lo, using such wooly terms doesn't answer the question (not that it was aimed at you, though since you responded ... )

Science tries for understanding and has heaps of humility.

The fact that the presupposition of God makes more sense of all things than the opposite view is a point in its favour

'God' doesn't make more sense - any more than to say "the pixies did it". It is a cop out. Just because we don't understand something does not mean "Ah, well, must have been god then". Historically, god has always been used to explain the gaps in our knowledge. As the gaps have shrunk, so has gods influence (apart from the obvious "he's behind it all"). Whenever we have found an answer or an explanation to anything at all, it has involved no god. We have answers yet to find. But as we do find them, they will not have "ah, yup, god did it" as an answer.

Currently, the herd (sorry, I mean the flock) may say "God did X". As soon as science *proves* that god did NOT do X, they won't say "Oh, damn, I was wrong about that. Hmmm. Maybe I am wrong about him doing Y and Z also". They will ignore X and concentrate on Y and Z. Until science proves god had no hand in Y either... And in a few hundred years, when science has explained everything (assuming we haven't destroyed ourselves by then), the believers will simply say "Ah, but God was behind everything we now understand." And if science proves he wasn't because of phenomena G, the answer will be "Ah, God did that". That's not perception. That is dogma.

[thestoat]

For those who didn't see these the first time around after I cocked up the post ...

A bible reading ...



Welcome to Hell ...

[Crackpot]

To presumtiously answer for Meade you're talking about the wrong question. Or at least different questions.

You: How.

Meade: Why.

Only the insecure have issues with man understanding the how of things and put themselves at odds with those who use science to it's proposed ends. (we'll leave the "science as religion" folks for another time)

THe question Meade is talking about is Why. (or at least it's the one I arrived at) and that only really leaves two viable answers at the end: God or Atheism. Divine Purpose or Cosmic Accident. Once at that point one makes a decision I chose deism. Frankly Because the alternative meant, to me at least, a life devoid of purpose. From there I spent a long time at Agnosticism until such time that my study led me to believe that the Christian God (as written not necessarily taught) is what I'd want and expect God to be.

[Sue U]

I chose deism. Frankly Because the alternative meant, to me at least, a life devoid of purpose.

Why? Seriously, I don't get it.

From there I spent a long time at Agnosticism until such time that my study led me to believe that the Christian God (as written not necessarily taught) is what I'd want and expect God to be.

How and why?

[Crackpot]

I chose deism. Frankly Because the alternative meant, to me at least, a life devoid of purpose.

Why? Seriously, I don't get it.

What meaning is there when your existence is a fluke of an apathetic cosmos? Any meaning you backload on to that is just window dressing to cover up the ugly truth: In the grand scheme of things it really doesn't matter. In a purely cynical way of looking at it you can say I put my wishful thinking on the front end by assuming Deity I sidestep the issue by baking meaning into the equation.

From there I spent a long time at Agnosticism until such time that my study led me to believe that the Christian God (as written not necessarily taught) is what I'd want and expect God to be.

How and why?

How? Reading the Bible and attending a Bible study led by a guy who not only put up with but enjoyed my skepticism (at the likely cost of a large number of other attendees). Why? Because the the idea of an unknown and unknowable deity didn't sit well with me.