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: 6
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
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.
That assumes that you know what God thinks, wants and does. Pretty big assumption.


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.
But I'm not God. Satan, maybe, but certainly not God.

You're speaking as though you know what God thinks. No one does.




posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:21 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

Then God is not omniscient nor omnipresent.

In other words...according to your logic...

God ceased to exist after the creation.

Or..

God is what was before the big bang, with God ceasing to exist after the big bang?

Because the ONLY way for God to not be observant is for God to not exist.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:23 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryDon79

It isn't a matter of assuming what God thinks.

omniscient = knows everything

ergo, if god creates something, god knows the results of that creation

God cannot be ignorant of something. That would be against God's nature.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:24 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: TerryDon79

Then God is not omniscient nor omnipresent.
why not? It just means God is everywhere. That's it.


In other words...according to your logic...
stop with trying to apply your thought to others.


God ceased to exist after the creation.
where did I say that?


Or..

God is what was before the big bang, with God ceasing to exist after the big bang?
I never said that either.


Because the ONLY way for God to not be observant is for God to not exist.
God can observe, but not interact, if that's what God wants to do



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:25 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: TerryDon79

It isn't a matter of assuming what God thinks.

omniscient = knows everything

ergo, if god creates something, god knows the results of that creation
not always. God might just know everything in that very instant. Nowhere does it say God knows about the future.


God cannot be ignorant of something. That would be against God's nature.
Sure God can. History proves God doesn't interact.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:31 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath


Would you suggest that humans are God and that when we discuss intelligent design, we should hold the creator to the limitations of humans?


Of course not -- and did not.


You do not have control over another person's actions. If you were the creator, this would mean you chose to take that road KNOWING someone would run that red light. See the difference?


Huh??? I'm not the Creator... and I know I'm not the Creator... and I never said or thought I'm the Creator... and I know that I don't know what other drivers are going to do... so yeah, that's a HUGE difference! And has absolutely no bearing on the Creator.


Bo: While our Creator may not/does not determine what choice I will make...



Poly: If this were true, then it would mean that the creator either a). has no plan or b). can have its plans disrupted...I'll let you ponder the implications of both.


No. It means that free will was part of the design. Nothing more and nothing less. I'll let you ponder the implications of that.


No, I did not eliminate it from the definition. If you follow the definition of intelligent design, the only rational conclusion is that free will does not exist.


That's your only conclusion and only your conclusion, based on your own definition and reasoning. As for being rational, well, I don't think it's rational to presume to know what cannot be known.


No, it's based on my ability to read what intelligent design entails and come to logical conclusions rather than try to make up false scenarios so I don't have to give up preconceived notions.


Allowing for variables, and acknowledging that I do not know what I cannot know, is certainly not "preconceived notions." I understand that only false scenarios can come from presuming to know what I cannot know, and there is nothing logical about that.


It isn't my definition of intelligent design upon which the OP was based. If you can't see that, I suggest you go read up on intelligent design a bit more. Curiously, how many definitions of intelligent design would you like to have?


I'm happy with the standard definition:


Intelligent design (ID) is the pseudoscientific view that "certain features of the universe and of living things are best explained by an intelligent cause, not an undirected process such as natural selection."


In other words, God wasn't shooting craps when he created the universe... There was a plan and a purpose... neither of which we can know. Nothing in there about free will or the lack thereof; that's your injection.


For at least the third time in this thread, I will reiterate that the idea of a God that stands back is known as "Deism."


I never claimed such and do not believe such. Rather, I believe that there are variables which can and will result in divine intervention (for want of a better phrase).



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:34 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath




predeterminism = everything that will ever happen has been decided
There is that definition kicked around the halls of Christianity but there is a example within the Bible that can lead to a different understanding that over turns that hard line definition . One where God gets the end results He wants and lets man exercise his free will .



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:39 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath




It isn't a matter of assuming what God thinks. omniscient = knows everything ergo, if god creates something, god knows the results of that creation God cannot be ignorant of something. That would be against God's nature.
Not just what did or didn't happen but what could have happened also . Try not to use God and can't in the same sentence .It limits Him .



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:52 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Which part would that be...certainly not the hardening of Pharoah's heart...



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 02:53 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1

Any time we use God in a sentence with another word, God becomes limited.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:02 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1


You raise a very important aspect (free will) but I think the self identification is first and foremost


This is as I see things. Yet for me, essential to that self identification is a recognition of the potential offered by the promise of free will exercised. I think that exercising the potential of free will can lead down two roads. One where the potential to exercise free will diminishes, or the road what opens up that potential for greater exercise. For me, that, is the road to God.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:25 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath




Any time we use God in a sentence with another word, God becomes limited.
Only because we have a limited ability to understand .Imagining a Gray haired old fella floating on the clouds probably doesn't represent the God Creator .Yet with all of our abilities to imagine Him He is willing to meet us at the level of understanding we have .He sure seems like a personal God that loves family .



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:29 PM
link   
a reply to: TerryMcGuire

Nebuchadnezzar is a good example .Like the Bible says the demons believer there is a God and they shiver .



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:44 PM
link   

edit on 6-5-2016 by ImaFungi because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 03:49 PM
link   
a reply to: the2ofusr1




Yet with all of our abilities to imagine Him He is willing to meet us at the level of understanding we have .He sure seems like a personal God that loves family .


Do have an example you could demonstrate for us how (your) God meets us at our level and how he "seems" like a personal, family loving god?


edit on 6-5-2016 by windword because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 04:17 PM
link   
a reply to: windword

Well my level of education was very low .I was in my 30's before I started to learn how to read and only had a small vocabulary .I wan't what many would consider to be a bad guy but I dabbled into the shadier side of the law .Many years after I got "saved" I met some people who were more family then any family I had experienced .Member's of that group I could call any-time and they would respond positively . And be happy to do so .....the operative word is "happy" ...Not put out even if they were .



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 04:30 PM
link   
a reply to: polyath
What you wrote was correct up until your conclusion, which is fundamentally wrong.

You keep assuming if god created something then he has to have a destiny for what he created. That is flawed.

If you re read the definitions of what you are using as justification than unfortunately it's wrong. Why can't god create the environment for evolution to take place and let the organisms evolve, on their own free will if you will ( not how evolution works, I'm fully aware).

It has been explained to you multiple times by numerous people but I understand why it sounds wrong to you, it's simply because you misinterpreted the definitions of relevant terms.

Just for the record I don't believe in free will, just an illusion created to control the masses. The matrix goes into it deeper.

The beat example you can use is Adam and Eve. God put the tree their knowing we would pick the fruit. If he didn't want us damped then why put it there knowing fine well it was predetermined to take it. God chose us to suffer. Adam and Eve had no choice in the matter.

I asked earlier but if you could just provide the link to the definition you saw for ID we could respect you were misled rather than unable to comprehend it and move on as the subject of free will is fascinating.

edit on 6-5-2016 by GemmyMcGemJew because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 04:43 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
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.


As far as I am concerned there is no 'winning' in a debate like this as no one can know and judge who would be more correct in their assumptions.

The whole premise of this argument is a contradiction in itself and the view that an omnipresent entity also HAVING to interact directly is a simplistic cop-out of the whole suggestion of Intelligent Design.

I am kind of surprised no one has brought up a possibility that there could be multiple creators or agents of cause supplied through a single source.

Since we are going off of observations why not have forces of a pushing and pulling nature vying for their place.

Quite possibly, maybe there is an ever present entity throughout all of matter that has stuff happening to it. Would that mean also it must be causing the happening? I think not but hey...im not omniscient





posted on May, 6 2016 @ 04:48 PM
link   
a reply to: Inarismessenger

Maybe we are defining "interacting" differently.


If you stand on the floor, would you say your feet are interacting with the floor? I would - so when I apply that thinking to omnipresence, it follows that interaction always occurs.



posted on May, 6 2016 @ 04:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: polyath
a reply to: Inarismessenger

Maybe we are defining "interacting" differently.


If you stand on the floor, would you say your feet are interacting with the floor? I would - so when I apply that thinking to omnipresence, it follows that interaction always occurs.


But that's also assuming that the omnipresence is present in a physical form.

If God can be omnipresent then what stops God from being formless? Just because, as humans, we can't define an object of no matter, doesn't mean that God can't be just that.



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 3  4  5    7 >>

log in

join