If ? exists we really dont have free will.
Options
Comments
-
sounds of jacob wrote: »ANSWER MY POST " DoUwant2go2Heaven?'
Why? Your a heretic my friend. I don't take black hebrew Israelite serious. They're a ridiculous cult. -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Lol I aint even goin to say nothin else you have your opinions i have mine, Im glad that you believe someone who does right for humanity is worst than somebody that runs around killing innocent people. And Jesus being a buddhist isnt in the bible, he practiced it between ages 14-29 coincidently the same ages that are missing in describing his life in the bible,
It doesn't matter what I think about you my brother. What matters is what ? thinks about you. In this life you are either going to do what pleases ? or what pleases man. You can't have it both ways.
And the Bible does tell us what Jesus was doing before His ministry began. "And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with ? and man." (Luke 2:52) There is nothing about being a Buddhist in this passage of scripture. Sorry. -
I think our free will is major proof that ? exist. The greatest gift we as humans ESPECIALLY AMERICANS have is free will. People flock from nations far and wide to a place where you can be what you want to be. Live where you want to live and for the most part do what you want to do. Free will is one of ? 's greatest gift. How mundane would life be if everyone was born with an itinerary. One of life's greatest is the belief that the only thing seperating us from our dreams are the limits we place on them when we wake.
-
The arguement against free will by an all-knowing ? precedes as this....
Free will exists when I have a decision that is under my power to make and all options are available to me. For example I come to a fork in the road and can freely choose to go right or left. The problem an all-knowing ? presents is if he knows I will choose to turn right then left was never really an option for me to choose. ? can not be wrong therefore left was an illusion of a choice that was never mine to make.
An arguement that retain at least a version of an All-Knowing ? and free will goes like this.
1. ? knows all that is and all that every was
2. ? knows all possible future outcomes.
This still is an all-knowing being but with one difference. ? does not know which future events will become past events. That is he does now know which decision I will make at thte crossroads but knows everything I have been through, everything going on with me at the moment I decide, and everything that possibly occur to me if I go right or if I go left.
I am not a fan of the arguement nor I am doing it justice but several theologians have wrestled with this concept over and over again. -
douwant2go2heaven? wrote: »why? Your a heretic my friend. I don't take black hebrew israelite serious. They're a ridiculous cult.
lmaoo!!! Your a christian my man chrisitianity was spread by the sword thats a slave religion i posted scripture not rhetoric answer with scripture !! free will is not biblical and i proved it read my post !!! -
I think our free will is major proof that ? exist. The greatest gift we as humans ESPECIALLY AMERICANS have is free will. People flock from nations far and wide to a place where you can be what you want to be. Live where you want to live and for the most part do what you want to do. Free will is one of ? 's greatest gift. How mundane would life be if everyone was born with an itinerary. One of life's greatest is the belief that the only thing seperating us from our dreams are the limits we place on them when we wake.
Ok so basically free will is the reason ? exists? That makes no sense your basically saying without a ? we would be incapable of thought and action. If ? didnt exist your saying somebody couldnt choose between somethin so small as wether to eat with a fork or spoon? -
So if you go and run into the middle of rush hour traffic at 5 pm today, will you stand before ? and tell Him that "I got killed because you forced me to run into traffic"? Com on man. Get real bro. If we didn't have free will we would be robots. If you decide to respond to this message your exersizing your will and if you decide not to respond your exersizing your will.
You know you can make a valid argument on both sides of this. So you would stand there looking at ? and telling him that he had no way to see that you would run into traffic ? That somehow you were more powerful then him and of your own "free will" you went beyond the scale of him and took your life without him knowing. How did you put that "come on bro". This argument is the same argument that falls into "election", is it choice or is it ? 's soverign plan than things go one way or another. -
play some sims 3 and shut the ? up
im just playin -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »Being omnipotent has it's limitations. ? , for example, can't do anything wrong. "But", you would say, "? wouldn't want to do anything wrong." Yep - another limitation. I can want to do something wrong - ? can't. ? will never know what it truly feels like to personally commit a sin. I remember watching George Carlin with his trick questions for Catholic priests like, "Can ? create a rock so big that he himself can't lift it?" Yes - this is all funny - but there really are some serious limitations to being omnipotent.
The Bible says ? knows the future.So - if ? knows the future, do we have free will? I mean - since ? already knows what we are going to do - then we really don't have any choice. We seem to have a choice because we don't know what we are going to do. But - if ? knows the future then reality is like a movie that's already been written and it's like we are watching the movie for the first time - so we don't know what's going to happen - but ? has already seen the movie and he knows what's going to happen - and that's it. The movie can't change.
What this means is - there really is no such thing as "free will". Free Will implies that we have a choice and that we can do A or we can do B but if ? already knows we are going to do A then we are going to do A. We can't chose to do B because if we chose B then ? would have been wrong about knowing we were going to chose A, and ? can't be wrong. Thus there really is no real choice.
i see we think along the same lines....most people cant answer these questions without insults or think we are trying to make fun -
ThaChozenWun wrote: »If I ran into traffic and got killed ? would have known I was going to do that already, therefore no its not really free will.
@ The bolded I thought it was the devil and his evil instilled in us that made us do wrong at times, thats not free will either then because we arent willingly doing wrong we are being forced by evil to do wrong.
Not saying that your wrong just stating you havent really answered my question, if we have free will ? shouldnt know the future because we would have the ability to control it, if he knows the future we really dont have that ability
just because ? knows what we are going to do in the future how does that mean we dont have control over what we do???
he just KNOWS already, hes not controlling it to make it happen.
u ever assume somethin that end up happenin?? okay, does it mean u controlled those events?? no.....
only difference is he doesnt have to assume, he already knows
? exists outside of time which is what makes Him infinite so he knows past present and future. -
threadstarter seems to be confusing ? 's knowledge with his Mercy
Because of ? 's knowledge yes he was completely aware of everything that would ever happen, how, when, to whom, etc....
Because of his Mercy he gives us the ability to CHOOSE (action) what it is that we do, so while the circumstances we may find ourselves in may not always be in our control, how we react to those circumstances are
What sense would it make for ? to judge us if all we had to say to get out of it was "well you're all powerful you should've stopped me!"
C'mon....really? -
forgive me, but Jesus did marvel at the centurions faith in Luke.DoUwant2go2Heaven? wrote: »Of course. ? is soveriegn and whatever He has purposed that will stand. Nothing that mankind does can alter the plans of ? for His creation. Do you think ? gets surprised at anything mankind does?
-
within 2 to 3 days after the hueman neonate is born they have free will.. thats about how long it takes for the liver and spleen to destroy the nucleated blood cells... the nucleated blood cells contain our parents database, mainly our mother's dna.
-
With a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent "? ", not only organisms, but "? " loses "free will" as well:fiat_money wrote: »Not only that, even "? " can't have "free will", if "? " is omniscient and omnipotent. For if "? " knows everything, it knows its own future, and if "? " can do anything, it can deviate from its own future. However, if "? " really knew its own future, any deviating actions that it would make would also be known; meaning "? " would not actually be deviating from its future. Therefore, if "? " knows its own future and can't deviate from it, this means, despite being able to do anything, "? " doesn't necessarily "choose" to do anything, as "? 's" future actions have already been defined by "? 's" absolute knowledge of the future.
Thus, if "? " knows its own future, yet can't choose to deviate from it, "? " does not have "free will". -
fiat_money wrote: »With a supposedly omniscient and omnipotent "? ", not only organisms, but "? " loses "free will" as well:
Maybe this could be true if ? 's Omniscience and Omnipotence is governed by the terms themselves; that ? has an obligation to "live up" to the definitions. -
Kind of a pointless suggestion.alissowack wrote: »Maybe this could be true if ? 's Omniscience and Omnipotence is governed by the terms themselves; that ? has an obligation to "live up" to the definitions.
If "? 's" knowledge and power don't fit the definitions of "omniscient" and "omnipotent", respectively; then "? " is neither omniscient or omnipotent. -
fiat_money wrote: »Kind of a pointless suggestion.
If "? 's" knowledge and power don't fit the definitions of "omniscient" and "omnipotent", respectively; then "? " is neither omniscient or omnipotent.
But what does these terms mean in respect to ? ? I'm not talking about what Webster says. My "pointless" point is only to say that man is not in a position to say who ? is or isn't. -
Sure they are. The word "? " was created by humans to begin with, so of course humans are in a position to define/label/examine this word. The same is done with any other word.alissowack wrote: »But what does these terms mean in respect to ? ? I'm not talking about what Webster says. My "pointless" point is only to say that man is not in a position to say who ? is or isn't.
Besides, your statement is self-defeating, since, by saying "? " is someone who humans can't describe/define, you've described/defined the nature of "? ". -
fiat_money wrote: »Sure they are. The word "? " was created by humans to begin with, so of course humans are in a position to define/label/examine this word. The same is done with any other word.
Besides, your statement is self-defeating, since, by saying "? " is someone who humans can't describe/define, you've described/defined the nature of "? ".
If ? exists, it doesn't matter what man thinks. ? would not be made more or less by what man does to define Him. If ? is...then He is and we are either going to accept it or reject it. -
Free Will can not exist if you believe in cause and effect
-
FatterThanKat wrote: »Free Will can not exist if you believe in cause and effect
Elaborate on your conclusion please
