reply to post by Lemon.Fresh
["God's will is done no matter what happens. He sees all and knows all. He knows what our future choices will be, and has taken that into account
for his plan."]
First of all it must empathetically be pointed out, that everything in this statement is BASED on doctrinal postulates, which rest on circular
argumentation. In other words: "It's true, because it's true."
This is FAITH, and has nothing to do with science/logic or rational reasoning whatsoever (I'm not trying to present a contest between science/logic
and faith, just reminding of the undeniable differences between them existing already from square one).
But just as an experiement, let's see, what this quote from you and the rest of your argumentations is, and where it leads, if we momentarily accept
it as a working hypothesis.
So disregarding the validity of your fundament, YOUR further premises are:
1/ There is a 'god', which is ultimate reality and the primal cause.
2/ This 'god' is beyond space-time (space-time being a part of 'god's' creation and thus subsidiary to 'god')
3/ 'God' can thus observe everything inside space-time independent of temporal or spatial restrictions.
4/ 'God' has an overall, ineffable plan, which is his 'will' (intent?), but on special dispensation ...
5/ 'God' has arranged, so at least mankind has what's called 'free will' (meaning that structural order, rules or regulations aren't
compulsary). Mankind can according to 'free will' make its own choices, but while 'god' can observe the outcome of this, he/she/it/that doesn't
Here is my analysis of your premises, partly using sources which are common amongst the christianities.
Mankind's postulated 'free will' is not total. Already from the start there were 'consequences', because while we're free to make choices, these
choices are made on a background of superiour conditions, we have to relate to and be responsible to.
"If you choose wrong, according to the superiour conditions, you have it coming"
The superiour conditions were
a/ DON'T achieve insight on 'right and wrong' (however that's defined. The christianities and generally abrahamic religions are in wild
disagreement on this).
b/ Be OBEDIENT.
So obviously mankind has limited 'free will'. A conclusion fitting well with the observable part of mundane existence, where mankind to some extent
can 'create' in a minor way, but where cosmic ('natural') laws still restrict us. (E.g. the principles of physical manifestations and 'forces'
and how these manifestations and forces are structured in certain relationships: Gravity etc).
In a creation where ALL parts have ultimate 'free will' it will be impossible for the creator to interfere, and even if this creator can observe the
outcome of such a situation, a total 'free will'/non-inteference model will not guarantee any fixed result.
This would be an experiment then, and what use has an omniscient entity of 'experiments'?
In a creation where there's limited 'free will', with the major part of the creation running on tracks according to fixed rules and regulations,
SPECIFIC questions can be asked concerning 'free will'.
As in the movie in the 'Matrix' series, where the 'architect' talked about the 'irregularites/flaws in the equation'.
'God' NEEDS the irregularity of 'free will', but in the context of a creation and a 'plan', where 'free will' eventually is an expendable
No matter how eloquently the situation is described (a personal comment: Christian 'explanations' are from a standard logical position 99% demagogic
twisted semantics = fairytales), it will always boil down to:
What is the reason/intent/motive/necessity of an omni-everything 'creator' to introduce an irregularity in the creation?
When up against this impertinent question from standard logic, christian evangelists usually try two ways of answering.
1/ They hijack standard science/logic, and twist it into their own christian version, where the original systematic methodologies of science/logic
are completely disregarded, but where a false image of the good name and respectability of original and REAL science/logic is pretended: "See, we are
scientific and logical"
2/ OR they rely on the argument of 'ineffability', where "mankind doesn't know everything and can't know everything" is expected to justify a
filling out knowledge-vacuums with any kind of postulates (sometimes plain insane nonsense).
1/ Method one is a christian exchange, adaption and perversion of objective methodology to subjective methods.
2/ Method two is filling out objective knowledge gaps with subjective postulates.
Both methods have manifested on this thread, but ofcourse carefully avoiding source- and methodology-critical challenges.
I have such a challenge here:
The inevitable regression of christian arguments (apart from the basic circle-argumentation) leads to:
1/ Inductive reasoning falsely presented as deductive logic.
2/ Ineffability presented as THE answer to knowledge gaps.
Both methods are faith-methodologies, and can be used by all, I repeat, ALL faiths. Applying such absurd claims and methods to any postulates, the
flying spaghetti monster is as 'proved' as the cristianities or as any other religion.
So exactly WHY is your faith-based religion and your faith-based methods and faith-based answers better than other faith-based ideologies (including
the religion of the flying spaghetti monster)?
I apologize for the length, extent and possible circumstantial language in this post, but the christianities have had two thousand years of saturating
language and society with their own propaganda and creating methods of pseudo-rational argumentation, so it's beyond my possibilities to present
opposition in a 10-liner post.