It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Intelligent Design vs. Free Will

page: 5
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2016 @ 01:59 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

One last thing...kindly look up the word "omnipresent."




posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:00 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath

Your definition of omnipresent is incorrect. It just means to be everywhere at the same. Nothing else.

LINK

omnipresent
[om-nuh-prez-uh nt]
adjective
1.
present everywhere at the same time:
the omnipresent God.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: TerryDon79

Do you apply critical thinking to any of your posts? This is exactly what you are doing:

Me: 2+2=4
You: No, it isn't.
Me: Giving a demonstration.
You: You didn't prove anything.
That isn't what I'm doing. You have offered an opinion on a wrong definition of the word omnipresent.


If you are going to be willfully ignorant and somehow not understand the concept that being everywhere means taking part in everything, further discussion with you is pointless. And don't take this as a "victory." It's more that I feel I'm talking to a brick wall.
Omnipresent just means being everywhere. It does not, by any definition, mean involved with everything.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus

originally posted by: polyath
a). God is not omniscient
or

b). free will doesn't exist


Or, an omniscient God purposefully excluded themselves from observing and influencing their experiment.


Then a). God isn't omniscient or
b). God sees suffering and chooses to do nothing



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath
Sorry mate. I have searched but I have not seen one definition anywhere that incorporates predeterminism into ID. If you could source where you read this assumption than we can adleast relate to your misunderstanding and address the main premise of your OP.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:05 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
Then a). God isn't omniscient or
b). God sees suffering and chooses to do nothing


B seems to be in line with observations.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:06 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath

LINK

omniscient
adjective
1.having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.


Show me where, in both omnipresent and omniscient definitions, it says interacting.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:07 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79




Omnipresent just means being everywhere. It does not, by any definition, mean involved with everything.


You are involved in the action for everywhere you are present. Think of the space your body takes up. Would you argue that you are not involved in any particular action taking place where you take up space? Now imagine an omnipresent being.

You cannot logically claim a being to be present everywhere, yet not taking part. That is beyond contradictory. Please stop making up illogical statements to win this debate. There are no cash prizes.My position isn't a matter of opinion - it's a matter of fact. Just like gravity is not my opinion. Just like the fact that the Earth revolves around the sun is not my opinion.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:09 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

For once, I agree. Of course, I would take that to mean God is evil...at the very least a complete jackass. Certainly not all-loving an benevolent.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:10 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

I think it'd be easier if you just looked up the definition of "interaction." I have this suspicion you are confusing "interaction" with "causality."



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath

You would have to show that you know what God thinks.

You would also need to prove that God would interact rather than observe.

Just because God is everywhere (by definition) it doesn't mean God has to interact. God can be everywhere and observe.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: TerryDon79

I think it'd be easier if you just looked up the definition of "interaction." I have this suspicion you are confusing "interaction" with "causality."


That's assuming God would interact after creating and not just observe.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
For once, I agree. Of course, I would take that to mean God is evil...at the very least a complete jackass. Certainly not all-loving an benevolent.


Well, I personally do not ascribe an anthropomorphized intelligence to God.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:13 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

You raise a very important aspect (free will) but I think the self identification is first and foremost .Fasting is the class for exercising the free will and makes for some interesting observations .But the soul or the self and the uniqueness of that revelation puts one in the proper position to approach God .A act of free will ,but one He wants and one that requires us to draw close to Him . A personal relationship with God ...



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:14 PM
link   
a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

It's called inference. I'll show you how it works.

Free will = the ability to choose

predeterminism = everything that will ever happen has been decided

intelligent design = a theory in which a creator (i.e. God) designed the universe and everything in it (as a sub note here...ID allows for evolution in the sense that God planned and guides the evolutionary process)

If God designed everything, free will does not exist.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:15 PM
link   
a reply to: AugustusMasonicus

I personally to not ascribe to God.

My ideas of God would not allow me to take personal responsibility if I were to be a theist.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: GemmyMcGemJew

If God designed everything, free will does not exist.
(unless God is observing and not taking any approach after creation)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:16 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

How could one be omnipresent and omniscient and somehow NOT observe?



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: TerryDon79

How could one be omnipresent and omniscient and somehow NOT observe?


Easily.

God does as God wants. If God doesn't want to interact then God doesn't.

ETA: My bad. Thought you said interact, but you said observe. Maybe God has its eyes closed?
edit on 652016 by TerryDon79 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:18 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Since we are talking about God, and not a human, it's a safe bet that God knew what would happen for everything He created.

If you give a person a knife to chop up some onion and he takes it to go kill someone - that is one thing

If you were God...it would mean you gave the knife to chop up onion - but knew the knife would be used for murder.




top topics



 
6
<< 2  3  4    6  7 >>

log in

join