Why Should I Believe in God?

Sternwallow wrote

Precisely. And, regarding our free will to commit a sin, the only way to demonstrate that we have this free will and are not just robots (God is supposed to hate robots, so, take that, Sony) is to commit a sin.

The more free will you have, the more you must sin to show it.

You can use your free will to do good just as well as to error. We see this demonstrated everyday in altered lives. God has allowed us to use our free will and this sometimes ends up with choices that are characterized as Sin. If there were no free will you couldn't sin.

Our system of laws are predicated on the premis that you have free will and when you break those laws you pay a penalty. if you choose to stay inside the boundaries then, for the most part, the system leaves you alone.

If the speed limit is 60 and you drive 62 you are technically breaking the law and you could get a ticket. Most of the time we play the odds and are pretty safe at 62. Just who has their foot on the gas pedal?

I don't know how many of you have children but a two year old can demonstrate free will.

josephpalazzo wrote

We don't have free will, 'coz everytime I use it, I end up paying through the nose...

I suppose that paying through the nose is preferable to some other orifice.

[Irreligious]

I don't know whether or not we have free will in the truest sense of the word, but I do know that we humans have an amazing ability to rationalize our behaviors, especially the ones that cause harm to others.

People do incredibly bad things, sometimes with the intention of doing good. You know that expression about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

Of course, I don't believe in the existence of a sentient deity who sits in judgement of the myriad actions taken by human beings, but if such a character did exist, it would make no sense for it/him to treat people like lab animals by testing the degree to which it/he supposedly made them "flawed," and then punish them (eternally) for their inability to overcome their "imperfections."

Clearly, as social animals, we aim to control each other's behaviors. Ideally, we encourage those behaviors that we deem to be in the best interests of the collective and discourage or actively prohibit those we think are not through enforceable laws and social mores. We couldn't survive in complex societies without these.

Because we are always lacking in knowledge about our own natures-- which are quite complex-- our laws and mores require constant revision to keep pace with newly acquired information and the changing circumstances of our existence in the societies that we create for ourselves. It's hard work, rife with trial and error but, as far as I can see, we're doing all the work by ourselves without any outside assistance, and we are the sole judges of our own work in that endeavor.

Other people are, of course, free to see the world however it makes sense to them, but I find it personally insulting to place some alleged, omniscient power as the sole judge of what we, ourselves, have wrought. Good or bad.

[dogpet]

happywarrior wrote

I don't know how many of you have children but a two year old can demonstrate free will.

Negative. If the two year old had free will it would not be compelled to test its boundaries.

dogpet wrote

Negative. If the two year old had free will it would not be compelled to test its boundaries.

What is your definition of free will?

Irreligious wrote

I don't know whether or not we have free will in the truest sense of the word, but I do know that we humans have an amazing ability to rationalize our behaviors, especially the ones that cause harm to others.

People do incredibly bad things, sometimes with the intention of doing good. You know that expression about the road to hell being paved with good intentions.

Of course, I don't believe in the existence of a sentient deity who sits in judgement of the myriad actions taken by human beings, but if such a character did exist, it would make no sense for it/him to treat people like lab animals by testing the degree to which it/he supposedly made them "flawed," and then punish them (eternally) for their inability to overcome their "imperfections."

Clearly, as social animals, we aim to control each other's behaviors. Ideally, we encourage those behaviors that we deem to be in the best interests of the collective and discourage or actively prohibit those we think are not through enforceable laws and social mores. We couldn't survive in complex societies without these.

Because we are always lacking in knowledge about our own natures-- which are quite complex-- our laws and mores require constant revision to keep pace with newly acquired information and the changing circumstances of our existence in the societies that we create for ourselves. It's hard work, rife with trial and error but, as far as I can see, we're doing all the work by ourselves without any outside assistance, and we are the sole judges of our own work in that endeavor.

Other people are, of course, free to see the world however it makes sense to them, but I find it personally insulting to place some alleged, omniscient power as the sole judge of what we, ourselves, have wrought. Good or bad.

Believe it or not, I pretty much agree with almost every thing you suppose here. It would make no sence of a god to treat us like lab rats to see how each tweak of the species plays out. It would make no sence for such a god to punish a creation that he/she made flawed in the first place just because the creation could not progress beyond its boundaries. But that is not the God I know however irrational that might seem. From my perspective, God did not make man imperfect, man chose his course but not to be outdone by man, God provided a method by which the imperfect could be made acceptable to perfect God without coercing the will of the imperfect. That's why it is so important to protect the free agency of the will.

[dogpet]

happywarrior wrote

What is your definition of free will?

An action not dependent on a previous action. Doing something we wouldn't do couldn't happen, coz we did it. If you attempt to use chance you will be prepared for each outcome.

dogpet wrote

An action not dependent on a previous action. Doing something we wouldn't do couldn't happen, coz we did it. If you attempt to use chance you will be prepared for each outcome.

I think I'll stick to a more common definition "The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."


Where did you get your defintion from dogpet?

[dogpet]

happywarrior wrote

I think I'll stick to a more common definition "The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."


Where did you get your defintion from dogpet?

If you had replaced "an agency such as fate or divine will." with, environment, conditioning, experience or instinct, I would agree.

I thought about it, I might be wrong.

[anthonyjfuchs]

happywarrior wrote

If there were no free will you couldn't sin.

If your God knows that you are going to sin, how can you be free to not sin?

happywarrior wrote

"The power of making free choices that are unconstrained by external circumstances or by an agency such as fate or divine will."

What is the will of your God, if not a "divine will"?

How do you propose that a choice is "unconstrained" by your God's perfect knowledge of what that action will be? How can you choose to do something that your God knows you aren't going to do? How can you choose not to do something that your God knows you will do?

anthonyjfuchs wrote

If your God knows that you are going to sin, how can you be free to not sin?


What is the will of your God, if not a "divine will"?

How do you propose that a choice is "unconstrained" by your God's perfect knowledge of what that action will be? How can you choose to do something that your God knows you aren't going to do? How can you choose not to do something that your God knows you will do?

This is a very fine point. Knowing the someone will post next on this thread does not coerce someone to do it. (except maybe cal) In fact knowing that someone will post next on this thread serves as a hinderance to further posts just to prove I'm wrong.

[Sternwallow]

happywarrior wrote

You can use your free will to do good just as well as to error. We see this demonstrated everyday in altered lives. God has allowed us to use our free will and this sometimes ends up with choices that are characterized as Sin. If there were no free will you couldn't sin.

Our system of laws are predicated on the premis that you have free will and when you break those laws you pay a penalty. if you choose to stay inside the boundaries then, for the most part, the system leaves you alone.

If the speed limit is 60 and you drive 62 you are technically breaking the law and you could get a ticket. Most of the time we play the odds and are pretty safe at 62. Just who has their foot on the gas pedal?

I don't know how many of you have children but a two year old can demonstrate free will.

Your problem here is that, if you do not sin, if you scrupulously obey all laws and always do God's will, there is no difference between you and the hated robot, no matter how much free will you think you have.

Only by that sin, that transgression, that willful disobedience can you prove that you have free will. Free will can only be exercised by sinning and, if it is not exercised, it is irrelevant and you are no better than a wind-up toy.

God's "gift" of free will is, therefore, a mandate to do wrong on purpose.

[Choobus]

happywarrior wrote

This is a very fine point. Knowing the someone will post next on this thread does not coerce someone to do it. (except maybe cal) In fact knowing that someone will post next on this thread serves as a hinderance to further posts just to prove I'm wrong.

Suspecting is different from knowing. If you know then the person has no choice, unless your knowledge is faulty. If your god faulty? (Our Father in heaven, Basil be your name).

[Sternwallow]

happywarrior wrote

Believe it or not, I pretty much agree with almost every thing you suppose here. It would make no sence of a god to treat us like lab rats to see how each tweak of the species plays out. It would make no sence for such a god to punish a creation that he/she made flawed in the first place just because the creation could not progress beyond its boundaries. But that is not the God I know however irrational that might seem. From my perspective, God did not make man imperfect, man chose his course but not to be outdone by man, God provided a method by which the imperfect could be made acceptable to perfect God without coercing the will of the imperfect. That's why it is so important to protect the free agency of the will.

(bolding mine)

God* is the only sentient being who could have made man imperfect and He chose exactly how much imperfection each of us has and therefore, exactly whether each of us will come to accept Him or not. Those that He deliberately made too imperfect are to be punished for their definite inability to overcome their God*-given infirmity to join Him. These are punished as though they were somehow responsible for the mature emotional state that makes them reasonably dismiss God.

How is there any free agency in the will if we are all constrained to follow God's* master plan? You understand that, if our will is truly free, there can be no such plan.

[Sternwallow]

dogpet wrote

An action not dependent on a previous action. Doing something we wouldn't do couldn't happen, coz we did it. If you attempt to use chance you will be prepared for each outcome.

Once chosen, chance is just another compelling cause like any other. You do not have to know the exact reason for a given cause of your decisions to still be compelled by it. Thus, choosing to flip a coin puts you in just as much compulsion to obey the coin as any other decision method you might choose. Even the choice to use a coin is compelled and, each time the coin is flipped, you are compelled to either follow it or not.

Just as there is not (in ordinary time frames) an uncaused event, so there is no uncaused choice. That makes the whole process deterministic.