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.

 

If God Is Omnipotent, Than There Is No Freewill

page: 4
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:15 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


If the weatherman knows it's going to rain tomorrow, does that mean that he made it rain?

Simply knowing what will happen doesn't mean you make it occur.

God puts us to a test, even knowing the results, because if you do good or wrong you will know it was your doing and not God's.




posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:18 PM
link   
reply to post by badmedia
 


The last thing any decent person should do is use the Bible as a source of morality. The whole book is full of people doing hideous things and being rewarded by God. It's messed UP! Yeah, there are some good things towards the end, but there's a whole host of disgusting, immoral, inhumane acts depicted as perfectly acceptable to society. If we can pick-and-choose which bits of the Bible we should accept as a moral guide, it no longer is a religious text, just a mish-mash of contradictory examples of how to act towards your fellow man. Pick from those at your peril.

I'm instantly wary of anyone who claims a book taught them morality, because that implies without the book they wouldn't have their morality, turning said morality into an affectation, not a true representation of the person. It's like when a believer says "how do atheists know not to kill people if they don't have the 10 commandments?" - they are saying without the bible they'd be happy to kill, and not see anything wrong with that. Either that or their argument is bunk and the bible is not the source of their morality.

Either way, a truly moral person doesn't need a book to teach them. If a book taught you morals, you are not a moral person. If you don't kill because God will punish you, you are no different from a murderer. Bring it.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 06:57 PM
link   
The book you got your morality from was the "book" of life, as taught to you by your parents and guardian adults. Perhaps the book was not written in words but rather in actions. In instructions, in punishments, in teaching the difference between a lie and a truth. Oftentimes, as we have seen, that books can be used as excuses for murder. (The 911 martyrs).
A human is born and must grow and develop in several different and practically simultaneous areas to achieve adulthood. The grow and develop physically, mentally and emotionally. The growth in these three areas can be interrupted or stopped. Human also grows and matures morally as well. That is why the faculty of reason and the reality of free will is so universally accepted and practiced is because it exists in a moral and emotional and mental demonstration and capacity. Responsibility is exercizing your free will to choose a course of action. Accountability, either positive or negative is what society grades the action with.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:30 PM
link   
I always thought of both science and religion being wrong. If I'm not mistaken, in science, you can't create something out of nothing. Big bang theory anyone? That also pertains to god supposedly poofing out of thin air. Supposedly there were elements floating around in space or something, I don't quite rememer, but how did they get there if nothing existed to put them there?



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:31 PM
link   
I think the OP means "omniscient" rather than "omnipotent."

Omni-potent means all powerful. Omniscient means all-knowing.

The premise of the OP is false, however.

Your knowledge that a glass knocked off a table will hit the ground does not necessarily bring it about that a glass will fall off a table and hit the ground. It is therefore possible that God can know everything you will ever do and still not qualify as the "efficient cause" of your actions.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:48 PM
link   
It seems to me that if one is 'given' free will then the term itself is contradictory.

If a person has free will because it has been given then they've no choice in the matter, so this very free will they have received is flawed from the outset.

Supposing one didn't want it - how would one exercise this free will to return it?

It could be argued that without an instruction manual one is liable to mis-use free will and could possibly take a life-time to perfect the art of using it.

So one might ask an older, wiser person for advice on how to use it. Then it could be argued that whatever choices one makes after receiving advice are actually the choices of the advisor. At the very least, influenced by said advisor.

Imagine if the advisor was a religious person, then all the free will a person has is being influenced by religious notions - so how is it free will?

So god has it all ways. He forces free will on humanity, then foists a religion onto them to make sure they can never use it. Plus includes things like lust, gluttony etc into their make-up and challenges them to overcome these temptations because they'll be sinners if they don't.

And if they can't overcome their god given nature they can spend eternity in hell. But don't worry you can use your free will to avoid this terrible fate - if you use it as god intends you to.

I could ramble on a bit more, but I think thats enough to make my point.

There are so many inconsistencies in the christian religion and my feeling is that the majority of them stem from these ideas that their god is omnipotent and is only ever 'good'.

I've just looked up 'omnipotent' in the dictionary and the meaning is given as 'all-powerful' which suggests to me that this god at least has the potential to be 'bad'. If he doesn't then he isn't omnipotent.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 07:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by dave420
reply to post by badmedia
 


The last thing any decent person should do is use the Bible as a source of morality. The whole book is full of people doing hideous things and being rewarded by God. It's messed UP! Yeah, there are some good things towards the end, but there's a whole host of disgusting, immoral, inhumane acts depicted as perfectly acceptable to society. If we can pick-and-choose which bits of the Bible we should accept as a moral guide, it no longer is a religious text, just a mish-mash of contradictory examples of how to act towards your fellow man. Pick from those at your peril.

I'm instantly wary of anyone who claims a book taught them morality, because that implies without the book they wouldn't have their morality, turning said morality into an affectation, not a true representation of the person. It's like when a believer says "how do atheists know not to kill people if they don't have the 10 commandments?" - they are saying without the bible they'd be happy to kill, and not see anything wrong with that. Either that or their argument is bunk and the bible is not the source of their morality.

Either way, a truly moral person doesn't need a book to teach them. If a book taught you morals, you are not a moral person. If you don't kill because God will punish you, you are no different from a murderer. Bring it.


Where did I say anything about getting morals from the bible? I'm pretty sure I said Jesus showed us the path.

Furthermore, I never learned anything from the bible. I got my knowledge outside the bible. And I merely saw the same teachings in the words of Jesus after the fact. I am not your typical christian and I reject the majority of what the church teaches. Those people worship the image and they carry bad things.

And, while I am not a big fan of evil, it does have it's purpose. And that is taught in Genesis. Where it mentions knowing both good and evil. I learned this in my own thoughts as hot and cold. I realized that hot can not exist without cold. And if you were always hot, you would never realize it without the change. Then I read that in genesis and I see the same philosophy being taught there. While some of you want to sit around and argue over the image, I see the meaning of it.

You can prove to me 100% that Jesus never existed and it means nothing to me. It would not change my beliefs at all. Because it doesn't matter if he was real or not. What does matter is that the things he taught are true.

I also do not believe I am forgiven just for believing in the image of Jesus and that he died on the cross for my sins. Instead, I believe he died on the cross because he had to do it to show people that it is better to die than to become the evil yourself by fighting back. That when you kill evil, as he could have, you do not rid the world of evil, you merely replace it and become it yourself. I believe he "saves" us by showing us the true path and way to act.

But you know what sucks? Having to explain these basic things anytime the bible is mentioned to people who just want to argue against he obvious dogmas the church teaches. Did it ever occur to you that if people are manipulating people with the bible, that they are doing it by manipulating the words of it? Is it also coincidence that these people hide behind the bible and the image of jesus and do bad things? You get people to follow the image of jesus and then you can lead them around blindly like a cat chasing a piece of yarn. But those who understand the philosophy and teachings of Jesus will easily see through these people, because they only use image to blind people, but they can not hide their actions.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 08:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Horza

Originally posted by Buck Division

Originally posted by JustAThought
There's no need to bring god into this. Free will is impossible. Period.

Read the above quote twice. It is 100% obviously true.

I disagree with this. How can a choice be predetermined by a cause if there is more than one way of reacting to that cause?


There is only one way of reacting to anything. We don't know the specifics of the reaction because the future is obscured. What we call "free will" is just our inability to see into the future.

When the roulette wheel spins, the ball might land in any slot. But once the ball hits the slot, it can never be in any other slot. It's position is fixed and immutable in the past. We didn't know what slot the ball would go into. But the ball was fated for a particular slot, and no other.

My contention is that the future is just as immutable as the past. Only, we can't see what is in the future. We think that is "free will".

But I see your point. It is all very arguable.

Edit: (And fun to argue too!)


[edit on 14-9-2008 by Buck Division]



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 09:34 PM
link   
reply to post by Fromabove
 


But if he knows it *before* I do it, which he does under the omnipotent theory assuming the God of the Bible, then I don't have free will. Look, if I'm going to commit some heinous sin tomorrow at noon - did God know I would do it back when I was born? If he knew it for a fact (again, assuming that God is never wrong, if God could be wrong then free will would be possible) at any point before I were to do it, then if I did something else, God would have been wrong. If he has to be right, and he knows of it beforehand, not that it's an outcome but that it's a definite event - coupled with when it happens, then I can't not do it. At least based on our understanding of time.

As a Christian, I have a lot of trouble with this b/c I can't see a way around it, other than, God would be such a complex being I couldn't possibly understand him/her. So there's no necessity he works on the same time continuum that I do - so perhaps that's where a distinction could be created.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:06 PM
link   
I am a Christian.I was raised a Methodist but do not go to any church now and havent for many years due mostlt to my work schedule and partly due to my not finding a churh I am comfortable with.I am not a part of any organized "NWO" organization.I have very little problem believing in God being omnipotent and believing at the same time I have free will.I found a site last night that has what is supposed to be a lost scroll of "The gospel of the Holy Twelve".In reading it I found a passage and a thought or 2 that explains where some of us believers come from.

"For them that believe regarding the spirit rather than the letter which killeth, the things herein related are true as Spiritual verities, for others they are as an idle tale."


Had they listened to the dictates of their hearts rather than to the reasoning of their minds, their Spiritual eyes would not have been "holden." Jesus also said: "My soul grieveth over the sons of men, because they are blind in their heart and see not," and again Jesus warned his followers to "beware of false prophets which come in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravening wolves." They would be known "by their fruits."


Most of the mistakes of the materialists arise from understanding localities and things material, when they should understand conditions and principles. The letter of Scripture is but the shadow of Divine Truth.


Those who mistake the shadow for the substance and the substance for the shadow, never arrive at Reality but follow false aims. Those who know the substance as the substance and the shadow as the shadow, arrive at Reality, and follow right aims.



The age in which we live is no age of faith. It is materialistic and anti-christian. Wickedness has become legalised. There is materialism in science and materialism in the Church and in religion. Truth is being suppressed and people are losing faith in so- called democracy and reformers ignore religion and Religion is therefore, and no wonder, repellent to many in these days.


www.thenazareneway.com...


I believe it is a Spiritual way of thinking.IMHO I do not think it is all cut and dry like x+y=z lets do it repeatedly in a lab so we can make it make sense the way we think it should make sense.That is mans way , that is science....the religion of "proof".I hope this kinda explains how some of us can believe in God being or doing or saying whatever he pleases and still not be contradictory.It is a Spiritual belief that doesnt have to take into account "mans" semantics and materialistic way of thinking.

I do hope I have not offended any.........just wanted to explain how some of us can blindly believe and not worry too much about trying to reason mans way to make everything fit the way "we" think it should.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:20 PM
link   

when you choose to do something, that is freewill, you used your freewill to do something that you wanted to do... BUT, how can you "choose" to do something, if all along you were destined to make that choice???


AlexG, the choice is the matter at hand, not knowledge about the choice. I don't believe in free will for personal reasons which I won't go into because it would be off topic, but for the sake of argument I will try to stand on the Christians side for the time being.

Simply because God knows what you all possible outcomes doesn't mean you didn't have the choice to do it. If you are hungry, you know you will eat, yet you still would consider it your choice to have done so, no? I just don't see how God's knowledge prevents choice. Wouldn't it still be considered free will as long as God didn't interfere? If he interfered, he would be causing you to have one possible direction to take. By knowing and not interfering, would he not be granting you free will?

That said, your definition of free will is still too vague for me. I'll give you two scenarios to make it more clear of where I was trying to go:

1) You make a conscious decision to stay home from work because you are tired. Nobody asked or told you to stay home, you decided that on your own.

2) You wake up, ready to go to work one morning, when a man is standing over you pointing a gun to your head. He says if you try to go to work he will shoot you; if you stay home he will let you live.

The difference between the two is in scenario 2 an outside force is causing you to make the choice, whereas in scenario 1 it is not a forced decision. We all know that every action is caused by a previous action, so nothing is absolutely free. However, if you just imagine the definition of free will as being a decision in which no outside force is causing you to act, there is no conflict with God being omnipotent/omniscient and your ability to have free will.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:37 PM
link   
People diss the bible and have no reason to. If your so curious READ it and stop thinking you know what your talking about because you obviously DON'T if you haven't read it.

Would you trust a surgeon that didn't go to school?

I wouldn't and I bet you wouldn't either.

God gave us free will. We do good we go to heaven. If not we go to hell. If we didn't have free will than there would be no crime.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:38 PM
link   
reply to post by fmcanarney
 


No, logic was my 'book'.

This is not a one-line reply.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:39 PM
link   
reply to post by AlexG141989
 


I just had to flag this thread. I remember being a young lad in catholic school of maybe 6 or 7 and hearing that God knew everything I did, or would ever do. I thought, well then what choices do I ever have if it is already fortold somewhere what I am going to do.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:40 PM
link   

Originally posted by NeverSurrender
People diss the bible and have no reason to. If your so curious READ it and stop thinking you know what your talking about because you obviously DON'T if you haven't read it.

Would you trust a surgeon that didn't go to school?

I wouldn't and I bet you wouldn't either.

God gave us free will. We do good we go to heaven. If not we go to hell. If we didn't have free will than there would be no crime.


I have read the bible and this thread is the least of the things wrong with the bible. Honestly, if you want people to believe, I would tell them to stay away from that book if I were you. It is full of loopholes and fallacies.



posted on Sep, 14 2008 @ 11:47 PM
link   
Yeah there are somethings about the bible that I don't completely agree with. Mainly the churches decision on which books to include in it and which ones not to include.

An example: The Apocalypse of Peter compared to the Apocalypse of John.

EDIT: The title thread says enough about your lack of understanding. If god is omnipotent he can do ANYTHING. That could be ummm hmmm lets see here.....

.....

giving people free will?

Of yeah that's right!

[edit on 15-9-2008 by NeverSurrender]



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:32 AM
link   
reply to post by NeverSurrender
 


I'd want my doctors and surgeons to use rational thought, something anyone who thinks the Bible is real isn't using.

You kind of shot yourself in the foot with that argument.



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:48 AM
link   
reply to post by dave420
 


Amen!



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:50 AM
link   

Originally posted by NeverSurrender
People diss the bible and have no reason to. If your so curious READ it and stop thinking you know what your talking about because you obviously DON'T if you haven't read it.

Would you trust a surgeon that didn't go to school?

I wouldn't and I bet you wouldn't either.

God gave us free will. We do good we go to heaven. If not we go to hell. If we didn't have free will than there would be no crime.


I've read it cover to cover, as well as the Koran and the Torah. Great literature, but not much else!



posted on Sep, 15 2008 @ 12:56 AM
link   
Ehh I'm just discussing the topic at hand.

What I don't get is this. Athiests will never accept religion, but they post these topics JUST for the purpose of dissing religion, and trying to make religious people more uncomfortable???

And if that is NOT the case, then please enlighten me why you chose to post this topic.

Because obviously, nothing I say is gonna make a difference for you. You've already made up your mind.

I haven't been on these forums for very long, but every topic this poster has written that I've seen is antireligious babble.

I rest my case.







 
3
<< 1  2  3    5  6  7 >>

log in

join