The Delusion of "Free Will"

Discussions on a ranges of philosophical issues including the nature of truth and reality, personal identity, mind-body theories, epistemology, justification of beliefs, argumentation and logic, philosophy of religion, free will and determinism, etc.
User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby Philip » Wed Jul 05, 2017 3:13 pm

Neo: The laws in our universe are what they are, they weren't intended to be anything. It is literally, in a visual way, God throwing pebbles, and one of the results spawned us. You could argue God's foreknowledge of this happening and I won't object to it. I certainly think that's true.


What massive contradictions in the above. The laws "weren't intended to be anything." And, "You could argue God's foreknowledge of this happening and I won't object to it." So, "Laws weren't intended to be anything?" And you know this, because???!!!

Did God not PLAN mankind? Did He not know what the details of the universe He created, as to what it would become and include? Men! Women! That they would sin and need a Savior. Did He not know the day the seed of the tree of the cross sprouted? Scripture, throughout, shows a God of purposes, plans, and how HE will ultimately conclude things. The idea that God didn't intend this or that - well, if He didn't INTEND or WANT this or that, while knowing full well of what it would ultimately become, outcomes, results, and where and how He would interact and guide His creation - then He would have created things differently.

What does the prophet say? "BEFORE I was formed in the womb, God knew me (Jeremiah 1:5)." And WHO formed him? God! Moses informs Pharaoh, per God, "But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Pharaoh SPECIFICALLY was given great power in Egypt, for GOD'S purposes! God controls events! That's throughout the Bible. And there was never a point when God did not know of His interactions with the men HE created.

Romans 13:1: "The authorities that exist have been appointed by God."

Daniel 2:21: "It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings;"

Proverbs 8:22-23: "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth".

John 1:3: "ALL things were made through Him, and without Him was not ANY thing made that was made."

1 Corinthians 2:7: "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world to our glory"

2 Timothy 1:9: "... God, who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."

All of Neo's glorying in the "random" capabilities of the creation, defies what Scripture says about what God has always "planned" and known about the universe, the world, and the men who would one day populate the earth. And He used HIS physics, laws, guidance, and man's free will to shape the creation, its events and conclusions. To God, NOTHING is random. And if there were ever something He didn't want to occur, then He wouldn't have put things together so that they could and thus would not have. And remember, God also thinks in terms of ULTIMATE outcomes. So, while He hates sin, He nonetheless allows it - and even USES it - for His purposes. And He always has known of the sin, when it would occur, and of His real-time reaction to it.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby neo-x » Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:06 pm

RickD wrote:Neo,

I think at least part of what you're saying, is that before the Big Bang, the laws of the universe didn't exist. Before the Big Bang, there was no universe for them to exist.

But assuming there was another universe, or something else, before our universe, there had to be some kind of laws that allowed the Big Bang to happen, correct?

I think I understand what you're saying about the unmoved mover cannot be proven by the existence of the universe. We just have no way of knowing what was "before". But wouldn't you say that whatever it is, would be kicking the proverbial can down the road? The fact that something, anything moves, something had to start the moving, right? Something cannot begin to move on its own, right?

You agree that something cannot cause itself?


Yes, I agree but I would say that ultimately, existence can't cause itself. Something is just something, someone can even argue how God, if he is something, can then cause himself. So I prefer the term existence. That is why I believe that God is existence himself and whatever exists, exists because of him, ultimately.
So we agree here.

That being said, as far as we know today there were no laws that allowed the BB to happen as standard physics all broke down there. Any laws which we can detect in our universe are the results of BB, not its precursors. And you wouldn't need laws actually. There are other mechanisms which can cause this.

To understand the above let me illustrate how a quantum fluctuating field behaves - that is if you can imagine yourself centred inside a fast moving grid of particles. Imagine that you can see uncountable particles whizzing around you but they are all blurry to a point that you can't discern if this is an illusion of a particle that whizzed past you or in reality a particle really did. That is the state of a quantum field. And the blur you see is really that, the particle is there and not there at the same time. It depends on whether you can observe its speed in which case you can't spot its location or its location in which case you can't calculate its speed, in either case it's there and thus a reality has formed. And if you didn't observe that particle may never be there. And each of the million blurs you see are all potential realities. Only your observation or detection of it, impacts whether the potential becomes reality or not. Please note that this is not to be conflated as a reference to the potentiality and actuality in the unmoved mover argument.

What we do know is one way our universe could have possibly happened is that the stronger nuclear force that exists within the potential particles of the quantum field (because it is constantly fluctuating between potential and real, as they initially carry zero energy. So it is like that blur I talked about above. ) repulsed with other particle forces that caused the expansion/BB and thus everything we see today. In fact, if only gravity formed as a result of the expansion, the rest of everything you see today can form just because of it. We know that the singularity had all the mass of the universe in it, at the quantum level.

As an additional note, there is a very cold spot within our universe which we can't explain as it's surrounded by hotspots so to say, that has baffled us really because there is no proper explanation for it currently however one theory which I like, is that this is where we got dented/nudged by an another universe. I think one way to imagine it is that seeing two water bubbles separate from one another, the amount of the area overlapping within the final split second is where the cold spot would lie.

I don't remember specifics of the paper but it was an interesting read. Ofcourse it's could be something else as well. We don't have enough evidence yet but theoratically it makes some sense.
Last edited by neo-x on Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:38 pm, edited 3 times in total.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby neo-x » Wed Jul 05, 2017 10:31 pm

Philip wrote:
Neo: The laws in our universe are what they are, they weren't intended to be anything. It is literally, in a visual way, God throwing pebbles, and one of the results spawned us. You could argue God's foreknowledge of this happening and I won't object to it. I certainly think that's true.


What massive contradictions in the above. The laws "weren't intended to be anything." And, "You could argue God's foreknowledge of this happening and I won't object to it." So, "Laws weren't intended to be anything?" And you know this, because???!!!

Did God not PLAN mankind? Did He not know what the details of the universe He created, as to what it would become and include? Men! Women! That they would sin and need a Savior. Did He not know the day the seed of the tree of the cross sprouted? Scripture, throughout, shows a God of purposes, plans, and how HE will ultimately conclude things. The idea that God didn't intend this or that - well, if He didn't INTEND or WANT this or that, while knowing full well of what it would ultimately become, outcomes, results, and where and how He would interact and guide His creation - then He would have created things differently.

What does the prophet say? "BEFORE I was formed in the womb, God knew me (Jeremiah 1:5)." And WHO formed him? God! Moses informs Pharaoh, per God, "But I have raised you up for this very purpose, that I might show you my power and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth." Pharaoh SPECIFICALLY was given great power in Egypt, for GOD'S purposes! God controls events! That's throughout the Bible. And there was never a point when God did not know of His interactions with the men HE created.

Romans 13:1: "The authorities that exist have been appointed by God."

Daniel 2:21: "It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings;"

Proverbs 8:22-23: "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up,
at the first, before the beginning of the earth".

John 1:3: "ALL things were made through Him, and without Him was not ANY thing made that was made."

1 Corinthians 2:7: "But we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom, which God ordained before the world to our glory"

2 Timothy 1:9: "... God, who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."

All of Neo's glorying in the "random" capabilities of the creation, defies what Scripture says about what God has always "planned" and known about the universe, the world, and the men who would one day populate the earth. And He used HIS physics, laws, guidance, and man's free will to shape the creation, its events and conclusions. To God, NOTHING is random. And if there were ever something He didn't want to occur, then He wouldn't have put things together so that they could and thus would not have. And remember, God also thinks in terms of ULTIMATE outcomes. So, while He hates sin, He nonetheless allows it - and even USES it - for His purposes. And He always has known of the sin, when it would occur, and of His real-time reaction to it.


You are only thinking in terms of humans and sin. This is such a small part of creation that it is not even a dot in the universe. Creation is much more. And if you think I am saying something wrong then please don't tell me, kindly show me how what I said is wrong. because whatever you quoted above I definitely agree to. So I am not sure what you are really objecting to.

And all of what you say is a strawman really as I wrote before that God has foreknowledge. And do you not believe that God's foreknowledge of something doesn't cause it to be pre-determined - or are you leaning towards predetermination?

I certainly think that once the universe started God interacted with humans, he had a plan for their redemption.

Take the references, for instance, you quoted:
2 Timothy 1:9: "... God, who saved us, and called us with a holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began."

You do know that by the world he means the world as in a collection of humans or humanity and not the planet itself? So it doesn't really imply what you are trying to, as far as the verse is concerned, I whole heartedly agree with it.

Take your second verse
John 1:3: "ALL things were made through Him, and without Him was not ANY thing made that was made."
I just wrote above that ultimately God is the source of all creation.

Romans 13:1: "The authorities that exist have been appointed by God."

ok, I generally agree.

Daniel 2:21: "It is He who changes the times and the epochs; He removes kings and establishes kings;"

Sure, the Bible clearly tells that he does.

Proverbs 8:22-23: "The Lord possessed me at the beginning of his work, the first of his acts of old. Ages ago I was set up, at the first, before the beginning of the earth"

The earth here doesn't mean the planet Earth, it means the world, as in a habitable world of man. By the logic you're using, God gave planet Earth, literally the rock floating in space, his only begotten son, and not to mankind...that makes no sense at all, Phil.

I know you are trying to show that God is in control of everything and I generally agree that on specific things he is, like prophecies and miracles etc but he doesn't tinker with nature in the same - controlling it the way you trying to imply from these verses. I would suggest a careful exegesis of the verses before using them as you clearly showed that your usage is mistreating the terms etc, they don't mean what you want them to mean.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby Philip » Thu Jul 06, 2017 8:17 am

Neo: Yes, I agree but I would say that ultimately, existence can't cause itself.


Good, IF you are referring to all that exists - as nothing can cause itself.

Neo: Something is just something, someone can even argue how God, if he is something, can then cause himself.


If a thing exists, it has to either be eternal or created must come from some previously existing thing. God could not cause Himself - as if He didn't always exist. Because nothing can created itself - a non-existing thing creates: nothing.

Neo: You are only thinking in terms of humans and sin.


No, I am not thinking ONLY in terms of what exists now, or of humanity. I've said many times, if God is eternal, if being creative is one of his characteristics, then there is an unlimited series of things He has created, whether in other physical or in non-physical dimensions. No, I don't think God always longed for those days He would created this time and humans. We're but one chapter in one of God's books, amongst countless books upon endless bookshelves.

Neo: Because whatever you quoted above I definitely agree to. So I am not sure what you are really objecting to.


What I disagree with is that God didn't plan or control the universe, as per ultimate creations and their outcomes - and even history itself. God doesn't merely "throw a pebble into the pond, and watch what happens." He knows exactly every minutia as to what will happen, and He has precise plans for how it will unfold. And our free will is part of that. When it comes to God, pure randomness is not congruent with what Scripture says about God.

Neo: And all of what you say is a strawman really as I wrote before that God has foreknowledge. And do you not believe that God's foreknowledge of something doesn't cause it to be pre-determined - or are you leaning towards predetermination?


Depends upon how you define foreknowledge. Does God predestine man's eternal fate - rather, did he, prior to mankind's existence, determine what our responses to Him must be? No! Does He determine exactly what we choose to do or say? No. Does He influence our choices? Immensely! Does He have a plan that will produce precise results? Yes! If God can actually SEE the future, as if it had already happened, they for Him, He KNOWS it will happen. And He can see how He will interact with all He controls along that path to achieve the ultimate results He can already see. So, for GOD, in that way, the future is pre-destined with conclusions God has always desired. And, no, He doesn't need to tell me what color socks I must choose in the morning. But He might well influence me to pick a particular pair if that is important to some ultimate outcome.

Neo: You do know that by the world he means the world as in a collection of humans or humanity and not the planet itself? So it doesn't really imply what you are trying to


Neo, I am asserting that God has always intended whatever exists and all ultimate outcomes. And that all of those things He has always known and planned the outcomes of. The existence of the universe vs. mankind has nothing to do with my assertions, as they have far more to do with the fact that God intentionally has allowed randomness - from OUR perspective - but always with specifics as to outcomes - in whatever He created, their abilities, designs, limitations, interactions - God never created anything He didn't know everything about it. That's my point.

Neo: I know you are trying to show that God is in control of everything and I generally agree that on specific things he is, like prophecies and miracles etc but he doesn't tinker with nature in the same - controlling it the way you trying to imply from these verses.


Neo, do you not understand that HOW God designed and made nature, the universe and its laws, IS a huge part of His way of controlling nature. He also can interrupt how things normally function, per His desires for a particular thing. He cannot create something He does not control - otherwise, He wouldn't be GOD! The parameters of what is possible, per life, per how the universe formed, were installed at the point of their creation. And the timing of each - controls the interactions of all things, all eventualities. Again, if He didn't want things to happen in any certain ways, He would have created them differently, as He knows exactly what He creates, and what their future will be, what they will do and cause. Breaking God down into when or what He controls or doesn't have full knowledge or power over - really, that's a description of a God that is not actually God. What science asserts about the first moments of the BB shows incredible things obeying highly specific laws, with key designs, capabilities, and incredible precision.

God's foreknowledge did not only precede humanity - but the universe. Picking apart meanings of "world" is meaningless to my point - which is, God knows all, has always known all, and controls all. All ultimate outcomes He desires, occur. And this has a lot to do with my philosophical defense of inerrancy - although their is a powerful historic literary criticism and documents aspects as well. God is all powerful and all-knowing. His Word IS reliable! That God would allow the core truths of His Word to be not kept intact by His people, and to have not protected it from being blended with outright fictions, lies and distortions, does not add up with the God detailed across Scripture. It's not what is proclaimed across Scripture for itself. One must ask themself, what are the characteristics of God, if He is not in control of all things, or hasn't always had perfect knowledge of all things.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby neo-x » Thu Jul 06, 2017 11:21 am

Neo: You do know that by the world he means the world as in a collection of humans or humanity and not the planet itself? So it doesn't really imply what you are trying to


Neo, I am asserting that God has always intended whatever exists and all ultimate outcomes. And that all of those things He has always known and planned the outcomes of. The existence of the universe vs. mankind has nothing to do with my assertions, as they have far more to do with the fact that God intentionally has allowed randomness - from OUR perspective - but always with specifics as to outcomes - in whatever He created, their abilities, designs, limitations, interactions - God never created anything He didn't know everything about it. That's my point.

But I already said God has foreknowledge so again are we both saying the same thing? I never said God made something he doesn't know about, that is stupid.

Neo: I know you are trying to show that God is in control of everything and I generally agree that on specific things he is, like prophecies and miracles etc but he doesn't tinker with nature in the same - controlling it the way you trying to imply from these verses.


Neo, do you not understand that HOW God designed and made nature, the universe and its laws, IS a huge part of His way of controlling nature. He also can interrupt how things normally function, per His desires for a particular thing. He cannot create something He does not control - otherwise, He wouldn't be GOD! The parameters of what is possible, per life, per how the universe formed, were installed at the point of their creation. And the timing of each - controls the interactions of all things, all eventualities. Again, if He didn't want things to happen in any certain ways, He would have created them differently, as He knows exactly what He creates, and what their future will be, what they will do and cause. Breaking God down into when or what He controls or doesn't have full knowledge or power over - really, that's a description of a God that is not actually God. What science asserts about the first moments of the BB shows incredible things obeying highly specific laws, with key designs, capabilities, and incredible precision.

The bolded I never claimed.
And TBH with you, I just don't see why this has to be like this. I get your point, but to me, it's pointless pragmatically as you or me or anybody for that matter don't have a clue of when or what God does for what purposes whatsoever as you confess yourself its shrouded in mystery. A rather clean explanation to me is that he doesn't show favorites or interrupts the natural laws and mechanisms. It's not that he can or can't, I say he just doesn't. And it shows. Our universe neither shows design nor any near enough positive capabilities nor incredible precision. It's a chaotic mess of which we are nothing but a dot on a million mile radius. And either way we go, our universe is a sure death plot for any life anyway. the universe is truly aimed for death, not life. We are the exception, not the rule.

God's foreknowledge did not only precede humanity - but the universe. Picking apart meanings of "world" is meaningless to my point - which is, God knows all, has always known all, and controls all. All ultimate outcomes He desires, occur. And this has a lot to do with my philosophical defense of inerrancy - although their is a powerful historic literary criticism and documents aspects as well. God is all powerful and all-knowing. His Word IS reliable! That God would allow the core truths of His Word to be not kept intact by His people, and to have not protected it from being blended with outright fictions, lies and distortions, does not add up with the God detailed across Scripture. It's not what is proclaimed across Scripture for itself. One must ask themself, what are the characteristics of God, if He is not in control of all things, or hasn't always had perfect knowledge of all things.
[/quote]
Yeah, but it doesn't give you the warrant to make claims from scriptures that scriptures itself doesn't make, as I pointed to you. Sure go ahead make the claims above but cite verses which actually say what you mean them to say, more so because you highlighted the parts of the verses to add emphasis. Now you are saying they don't matter? Why did you highlight or bold the parts if you intended their meanings to be trivial and meaningless?

Even if I say God is in complete control, he, as far as I can see never really exerts his control over anything. From the Holocaust to modern-day earthquakes to churches falling on worshippers etc. etc. How can you tell a rape victim that God is in control?

On the issue of inerrancy, we have differing views, I agree, God is all that you claim, powerful, all knowing etc. but does he intervene in anything? He doesn't. I don't know why, but he doesn't. So inerrancy is not a sacred cow so to speak. It can happen, it could have very weel happened that some of the details could be off, may be trivial but nonetheless. However, the core meanings may be the same. And we were both saying that it would be fine, but you are advocating for a word to word inerrant scripture, right?

So I don't think we can agree. One main objection has been biological evidence which flies in the face of the claims of inerrancy, at least on a few parts. If you want to believe that God has to protect the 66 books, voted and fought over by a body of clergy some 300 years after Christ left the planet, otherwise, he can't be God, be my guest. I don't think that such a task is either necessary for faith nor is God obliged to do so. And judging by his lack of personal intervention in the lives of people, I don't think he guarantees inerrancy in any shape or form. You can claim it from an academic perspective and I would agree with you that by and large, we have a very good Bible. But you tie it to a matter of ultimate faith in God in an all or nothing approach which I think is unnecessary and thus we differ

I think things happen because they happen. They have to happen as that is the only way the system truly works. You say God intends outcomes, ok I can agree to that, you say he is powerful, I agree, you say he is all-knowing and I still agree. I have never claimed anything otherwise.

The only difference is, you say he does take care of things like inerrant scriptures he actively protects its integrity, and I say he doesn't even save humans from natural or man-made disasters or atrocities, why would he care about a book more if someone wanted to change something into it or get something wrong in there. There are far more important things than that to take care of.

At best you can say God allows sin to happen for all the evil we see and I'd say then he must by that definition allow sin which is getting errant scriptures as well, surely they don't mean higher to him?

You can't, however, say that God actively controls the integrity of Scriptures throughout the ages against all efforts to corrupt them but allows evil to happen nonetheless. It's either both or nothing. I submit to you that scripture being errant on any point is equally wrong and by your belief, God can even turn that to his purpose. But you rather believe that when it comes to inerrancy then be open to evidence. The problem I see is that you haven't evaluated and rejected the evidence, rather you have denied acknowledging it with sweeping claims that science can't be held higher than God's word. My contention is and always will be, evidence is the highest always. I really don't see how it is damaging to faith to accept what is rational and makes sense and is undeniable when evaluated.

To me inerrancy isn't a faith issue, I have moved on. It is important to you so I can see why you'd stick to it, however, I think it is just a matter of time. The same way people accepted scientific facts over traditional held biblical beliefs in the pre-reformation era, people will accept with time more scientific facts.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
RickD
Board Moderator
Posts: 18621
Joined: Thu Jan 14, 2010 7:59 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Kamino

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby RickD » Thu Jul 06, 2017 12:12 pm

Neo,

When you deny biblical inerrancy, it always gets to the obvious question:
How can you have any confidence in your salvation, if you don't believe the Bible is true?
1 Corinthians 1:9
9 God is faithful, through whom you were called into fellowship with His Son, Jesus Christ our Lord.

Audie wrote:
"Christianity is not a joke, but it has some very poor representatives."


St. Richard the Sarcastic--The Patron Saint of Irony

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby Philip » Thu Jul 06, 2017 1:04 pm

Neo: I know you are trying to show that God is in control of everything and I generally agree that on specific things he is, like prophecies and miracles etc but he doesn't tinker with nature in the same - controlling it the way you trying to imply from these verses.


Neo, if God controls all design, functionality, the parameters allowed, intervenes when He wants, how He wants, controls all ultimate outcomes, authors history's conclusions, precisely as He desires, ending it precisely as He desires, raises up all manner of kings, presidents and dictators, then, pray tell, what does He NOT control??? Does He micromanage EVERTHING? No - clearly, we could not sin if that were the case. But the creation was not randomly assembled. God's ultimate creation on earth, man, wasn't happenstance that He didn't plan and control. He didn't plan to die for slugs or worms, but for men, and knew us before He created us. Throughout Scripture, we're told that God's word is true and trustworthy. Jesus confirms that. He confirms the entirety of The Law and The Prophets (the OT!). I think - and maybe I'm wrong - but you seem so enamored with the possibilities asserted by evolutionists, that you don't like the idea that God exerted control over the specifics over what came into existence, whether men or mice, etc.

Neo: ... you or me or anybody for that matter don't have a clue of when or what God does for what purposes whatsoever as you confess yourself its shrouded in mystery. A rather clean explanation to me is that he doesn't show favorites or interrupts the natural laws and mechanisms.


Neo, I don't know how you can't see that HOW and WHEN God created WHATEVER things, per their designs, functions, and the timing of their appearance and developments, while fully knowing what each things "seeds" would become, how they would behave, was and IS controlling outcomes. The only way God could get to other outcomes, than what exists/what has already occurred or developed, is to have made the "seeds" or building blocks differently, so that they interacted differently, or the timing and their engineering had been differently made. And that you are hung up on the HOW of what God did - really, nothing can be random to God. He can't create anything He doesn't ultimately control the outcomes of.

Neo: It's not that he can or can't, I say he just doesn't. And it shows. Our universe neither shows design nor any near enough positive capabilities nor incredible precision. It's a chaotic mess of which we are nothing but a dot on a million mile radius.


Sure, and that's why we're typing on a forum over the internet, and not two slugs farting in the mud. WHO is it a chaotic mess to???!!! WHO created the wiring while knowing all that would become of it? If God planned before mankind existed to choose us and to die for us, I'd say that shows He controls what kind of creatures He planned to die for - and KNEW He was going to die for. What you say makes absolute no sense, per Scripture, per what exists. Einstein saw "God's clock" - He wanted to know how it all worked. How many scientists speak of the astonishing precision and functionalities and designs of the universe? Oh, many may not like to say it was "designed, as if by an intelligent Being," but they speak in those terms nonetheless.

Neo: Even if I say God is in complete control, he, as far as I can see never really exerts his control over anything. From the Holocaust to modern-day earthquakes to churches falling on worshippers etc. etc. How can you tell a rape victim that God is in control?


Neo, in one breath you say you believe those Scriptures I quoted, but in the very next, you bring up rape victims. And you KNOW that God has allowed us, GIVEN us, free will. That means we can sin. And He definitely says in Scripture that He uses intentions of men meant for evil, yet for His good, ultimately. So, in the end, God will punish or forgive, depending upon our response to Him. Are you telling me your reactions to the idea that God is in control is actually an emotional issue you have - because that's an emotional argument. THIS world, this agony, is temporary. You are making the same mistakes so many atheists do, as because you can't make sense of a God of love allowing evil or natural disasters - if but for a brief point in eternity - then you insist God doesn't control ultimate outcomes. Of course, we have no idea how God uses certain very difficult-to-understand things. He intervenes as He desires, and when, as to what He desires and His purposes. NO one will ever have a handle upon such things - not in this lifetime. But the God who creates a universe, will control it as He desires, when He desires. What seems random to man is in no way random to God!

Neo: On the issue of inerrancy, we have differing views, I agree, God is all that you claim, powerful, all knowing etc. but does he intervene in anything? He doesn't. I don't know why, but he doesn't.


How many passages in Scripture show that to be untrue? Look at the entire history of Israel, in the OT, and tell me that.

Neo: So inerrancy is not a sacred cow so to speak. It can happen, it could have very weel happened that some of the details could be off, may be trivial but nonetheless. However, the core meanings may be the same. And we were both saying that it would be fine, but you are advocating for a word to word inerrant scripture, right?


Of course it''s not "word for word" accurate, and you know that. I've written prolifically with links to scholarly insights on this issue - do a search.

Neo: But you tie it to a matter of ultimate faith in God in an all or nothing approach which I think is unnecessary and thus we differ


It's not a salvation issue. But it certainly strikes to the heart of whether God is trustworthy, and whether we can know that. Many foundational truths are all across Scripture - we could never trust it if God had not protected it from the lies, distortions, and myth-making of men. Scripture makes many claims - how can we trust them? Did the Resurrection happen? Did Jesus really say we need to be born again? On and on. How do you know what is true? History and textual criticism shows that God HAS protected His word intact - the meanings, and with an extremely high level of accuracy, due to the practices of scribal methodologies, comparisons of old manuscripts across the world. Jesus confirmed the OT - and the Dead Sea Scrolls show we can know almost precisely what OT books Jesus and His contemporaries had in their hands. The NT so prolifically quotes the OT, that one can almost assemble the OT from quotes alone. Are we to throw out the NT as well? Where does that end? Look at so much of the OT that Jesus confirmed separately: https://www.blueletterbible.org/faq/don_stewart/don_stewart_1239.cfm. And then look at how He confirmed the entire OT categorically in Matthew 23:34-35 (explained here: http://www.bibleprophecyaswritten.com/trutherror/jesusandyourbible.html).

Neo: You say God intends outcomes, ok I can agree to that, you say he is powerful, I agree, you say he is all-knowing and I still agree. I have never claimed anything otherwise.


But then you say: "as I can see never really exerts his control over anything" - um, how can God intend outcomes and they come true per ancient prophecies, and yet he "never exerts control over anything?" Think of all the prophecies concerning Christ - God just hoped they would work out without His control - per what??? Man's actions? Dumb luck? How about intentionality per orchestrating events as He desires them to work out? I'd call that CONTROL.

'Does God Control Random Events?' (from Bible Study Tools): http://www.biblestudytools.com/bible-study/topical-studies/does-god-control-random-events.html

Neo: The only difference is, you say he does take care of things like inerrant scriptures he actively protects its integrity, and I say he doesn't even save humans from natural or man-made disasters or atrocities, why would he care about a book more if someone wanted to change something into it or get something wrong in there. There are far more important things than that to take care of.


Because God's Word is true! Do you think we have Scriptures by accident, or by God's oversight? Do you think God does not care about what happens to His word - within those Who are His children and devoted to Him? I'm not speaking of what various pagans added to Scripture (Mormons, Muhammad). Neo, how do you believe ANYTHING in Scripture you didn't witness or have a way of knowing whether it is true? How do you know Jesus was God? What if the disciples made it up? What if salvation isn't necessary? How do you know what you believe? An all-powerful God who came to DIE for His word and prophecies cares about ALL of it! And that is what Scripture claims!

Neo: At best you can say God allows sin to happen for all the evil we see and I'd say then he must by that definition allow sin which is getting errant scriptures as well, surely they don't mean higher to him?


Either you are ignorant of what inerrant scholars believe and teach, or you are ignoring it. I can misspell and have the wrong word order, sometime synonyms mistakenly inserted into a paragraph, and with very poor grammar - but it can still be 100% factually true. The vast number of errors in Scripture are transcriptionist in nature. Do I think the Sermon on the Mount is word for word - or Jesus other teachings? NO! Hundreds, even thousand witnesses some of these - they broke for lunch, spent the day or longer - so, paraphrasing and eyewitness account can be 100% true. WHY, Neo, believe the disciples who wrote of seeing Jesus alive post Crucifixion? Does it sound scientific?

Neo: My contention is and always will be, evidence is the highest always. I really don't see how it is damaging to faith to accept what is rational and makes sense and is undeniable when evaluated.


Because God never intended that you would first need to perfectly understand everything before knowing it to be true. When God had the prophets write down prophecies about Christ - did they truly understand it before obeying to record it? Faith in a 2,000-year-old "dead" rabbi who claimed to be God? Is that entirely rational? And what of the Holy Spirit, teaching us the truth from within? Inspiring Scripture's writers, "bringing to mind" all Jesus had said. Neo, even scientists disagree over what can be known, or what is true. Earth is ancient. The evidences are diverse and often obscured by time. You have no idea that you have even the theological intentions (particularly parts of the Creation accounts) of key passages correct, much less the science. You're musch like the young-earthers, as you believe their narrative of what the text means MUST be the only rational way of viewing it. And yet, countless Bible Scholars disagree with that approach - do you know more then they do???

Neo: to me inerrancy isn't a faith issue, I have moved on.


Well, God hasn't moved on! And being able to trust God's word - what Christian doesn't think that is important? Think of all those prophecies about the Messiah - from ancient times - trustworthy for the 1st century and for our century! Why would we look to His return with anticipation and confidence - if His Word is filled with uncertainties. And, redundantly, don't you think subsequent prophets, the disciples, and especially Jesus would have carefully warned and emphasized that certain passages - particularly foundational ones, had been distorted, made up, or blended with pure fiction???!!! Much the opposite is how all of those viewed Scripture!

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Matthew 24:35)

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." (Isaiah 40:8)

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby neo-x » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:08 pm

RickD wrote:Neo,

When you deny biblical inerrancy, it always gets to the obvious question:
How can you have any confidence in your salvation, if you don't believe the Bible is true?


We have discussed this before but let me reiterate. If tomorrow, just for example, we find that there is no such place as Sodom or Gomorrah, would you rule out all of the Bible as wrong? I wouldn't. It doesn't have to be. As you know, it's not a salvation issue either. Contrary to what you may perceive that doesn't make me think the entire Bible is wrong either.

But if we find Jesus' body then Christianity would be false - so things carry different weight in theology and faith. Some things are absolutely necessary, some aren't. To profess that Adam and Eve were first humans has never been a foundational core belief for salvation.

And the reason I don't doubt the entire Bible is simply because I take the text absolutely seriously, and care about its voice and meaning. And I recognise what it's trying to say and I appreciate it. If it got one or two detail wrong, that is understandable to me. And even these details are falsified via evidence so it's not like I want to say it's wrong.

Inerrancy, to me, is just a label, Rick.
Last edited by neo-x on Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:20 pm, edited 2 times in total.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby neo-x » Thu Jul 06, 2017 10:12 pm

Phil, thank you for your thoughts. I will write a reply a little later.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby neo-x » Fri Jul 07, 2017 11:43 am

Of course, we have no idea how God uses certain very difficult-to-understand things. He intervenes as He desires, and when, as to what He desires and His purposes. NO one will ever have a handle upon such things - not in this lifetime. But the God who creates a universe, will control it as He desires, when He desires.


Ok, so that us both of us saying the same thing.

Neo, in one breath you say you believe those Scriptures I quoted, but in the very next, you bring up rape victims. And you KNOW that God has allowed us, GIVEN us, free will. That means we can sin. And He definitely says in Scripture that He uses intentions of men meant for evil, yet for His good, ultimately. So, in the end, God will punish or forgive, depending upon our response to Him. Are you telling me your reactions to the idea that God is in control is actually an emotional issue you have - because that's an emotional argument. THIS world, this agony, is temporary. You are making the same mistakes so many atheists do, as because you can't make sense of a God of love allowing evil or natural disasters - if but for a brief point in eternity - then you insist God doesn't control ultimate outcomes.

I can make sense of it, but not when you claim that EVERYTHING is controlled by God. Even without evil and human interventions, an earthquake isn't a sin, a comet hitting earth is not, the yellow stone caldera blowing up isn't a sin, a Tsunami hitting isn't one - and yet all of these things have happened before, so please don't mind me if I don't share your confidence.

And to be fair, I haven't denied God any control from my argument, I have said he doesn't intervene. There is a difference. He can, but he doesn't. Now you can push into mystery here as you have done with the first quote in my post, and say well God is in control, I just don't know how or when but I believe he is in control. And that's fine with me, you can believe that, however, it is thin as ice.

And again, I think God does control ultimate outcomes, we know that from prophecy, yet I believe this doesn't extend to normal times or natural events. Because unlike prophecy where the outcomes are exactly what is intended, which is often the greater good, this if had happened similarly, where God CONTROLLED ultimate outcomes, in normal times and natural events in general, we would have gotten the same results - the greater good. But we haven't. If you really think otherwise please show my any sound reasoning.

Neo: The only difference is, you say he does take care of things like inerrant scriptures he actively protects its integrity, and I say he doesn't even save humans from natural or man-made disasters or atrocities, why would he care about a book more if someone wanted to change something into it or get something wrong in there. There are far more important things than that to take care of.


Because God's Word is true! Do you think we have Scriptures by accident, or by God's oversight? Do you think God does not care about what happens to His word - within those Who are His children and devoted to Him? I'm not speaking of what various pagans added to Scripture (Mormons, Muhammad). Neo, how do you believe ANYTHING in Scripture you didn't witness or have a way of knowing whether it is true? How do you know Jesus was God? What if the disciples made it up? What if salvation isn't necessary? How do you know what you believe? An all-powerful God who came to DIE for His word and prophecies cares about ALL of it! And that is what Scripture claims!

Neo: At best you can say God allows sin to happen for all the evil we see and I'd say then he must by that definition allow sin which is getting errant scriptures as well, surely they don't mean higher to him?


Either you are ignorant of what inerrant scholars believe and teach, or you are ignoring it. I can misspell and have the wrong word order, sometime synonyms mistakenly inserted into a paragraph, and with very poor grammar - but it can still be 100% factually true. The vast number of errors in Scripture are transcriptionist in nature. Do I think the Sermon on the Mount is word for word - or Jesus other teachings? NO! Hundreds, even thousand witnesses some of these - they broke for lunch, spent the day or longer - so, paraphrasing and eyewitness account can be 100% true. WHY, Neo, believe the disciples who wrote of seeing Jesus alive post Crucifixion? Does it sound scientific?

Neo: My contention is and always will be, evidence is the highest always. I really don't see how it is damaging to faith to accept what is rational and makes sense and is undeniable when evaluated.


Because God never intended that you would first need to perfectly understand everything before knowing it to be true. When God had the prophets write down prophecies about Christ - did they truly understand it before obeying to record it? Faith in a 2,000-year-old "dead" rabbi who claimed to be God? Is that entirely rational? And what of the Holy Spirit, teaching us the truth from within? Inspiring Scripture's writers, "bringing to mind" all Jesus had said. Neo, even scientists disagree over what can be known, or what is true. Earth is ancient. The evidences are diverse and often obscured by time. You have no idea that you have even the theological intentions (particularly parts of the Creation accounts) of key passages correct, much less the science. You're musch like the young-earthers, as you believe their narrative of what the text means MUST be the only rational way of viewing it. And yet, countless Bible Scholars disagree with that approach - do you know more then they do???

Neo: to me inerrancy isn't a faith issue, I have moved on.


Well, God hasn't moved on! And being able to trust God's word - what Christian doesn't think that is important? Think of all those prophecies about the Messiah - from ancient times - trustworthy for the 1st century and for our century! Why would we look to His return with anticipation and confidence - if His Word is filled with uncertainties. And, redundantly, don't you think subsequent prophets, the disciples, and especially Jesus would have carefully warned and emphasized that certain passages - particularly foundational ones, had been distorted, made up, or blended with pure fiction???!!! Much the opposite is how all of those viewed Scripture!

Heaven and earth will pass away, but my words will not pass away. (Matthew 24:35)

"The grass withers, the flower fades, but the word of our God will stand forever." (Isaiah 40:8)

Since you continuously misrepresent me, I am not sure I should answer this, seeing that I have in the past countless times repeated it. I have never said that the Bible is filled with lies. How much more can you distort my position? You don't get it. I am beyond frustrated that this is what we have to resort to every time. For the sake of decency, look at the old posts we have, otherwise don't waste my time Phil.

And for the umpteenth time, where the evidence is against a claim-without-evidence, evidence holds more weight. Show me another evidence which is better and I will rethink. Right now, it's all talk but you need to refute the biological evidence first, Phil. No two people can populate the world with all the diversity we see today. It is not possible. That is the claim and there's biological evidence for it.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
Philip
Board Moderator
Posts: 5929
Joined: Mon Dec 28, 2009 7:45 pm
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Creation Position: Day-Age
Location: Betwixt the Sea and the Mountains

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby Philip » Sun Jul 09, 2017 6:58 pm

Neo, this is not personal - please don't' make it so.

Neo: I can make sense of it, but not when you claim that EVERYTHING is controlled by God. Even without evil and human interventions, an earthquake isn't a sin, a comet hitting earth is not, the yellow stone caldera blowing up isn't a sin, a Tsunami hitting isn't one - and yet all of these things have happened before, so please don't mind me if I don't share your confidence.


My point isn't that God has to micromanage the universe, because it is all under His control. If you know about every aspect of what a thing or person will do, what it will be capable of, how it will turn out – whether through evolution or progressive creation, its timing, capabilities, parameters, interactions with other created things – these are all under His control as to how and when they were built, and as to how every thing and interaction of them was foreknown before their creation. Storms, earthquakes, their timing, their results – these are all under God's control as well. He could stop them at any point He desires to. And as there is no point at which He does not know about such things, they are all under His control – if ANYTHING happens, God has allowed it. If He doesn't ultimately want something to happen, He can intervene to stop what they would normally be expected to do. These are ALL things under God's control. It matters not WHEN He intervenes, nor if He set things in a certain motion, with specific timings, or how He set the parameters – because it is in how He creates a thing, while knowing all of its future development and interactions, that is a determinate of the results. And that's control, at whatever point you desire to say it comes. Even if merely placing something in motion and deciding to take “hands off” - that under God's control – how could it not be? Clearly, Scripture shows God intervenes as He desires. It tells us He is in absolute control. Neo, you just don't believe what it says!

Neo: And to be fair, I haven't denied God any control from my argument, I have said he doesn't intervene. There is a difference. He can, but he doesn't.


Again, you are making a time reference as to WHEN God intervenes – because He knows all of the future results of His creations, their abilities, their actions, their interactions – good, bad or whatever – He has controlled things upon their creation – but that's just one aspect. He also interacts in the moment, because we live in real-time, He, at times, intervenes with the otherwise normal course of a things – other times He does not. Scripture has many examples of this. And as all things are under His control – even allowing typical ways that something plays out – that's still a decision under His control. How could it not be?

Neo: And again, I think God does control ultimate outcomes, we know that from prophecy, yet I believe this doesn't extend to normal times or natural events. Because unlike prophecy where the outcomes are exactly what is intended, which is often the greater good, this if had happened similarly, where God CONTROLLED ultimate outcomes, in normal times and natural events in general, we would have gotten the same results - the greater good. But we haven't. If you really think otherwise please show my any sound reasoning.


Ultimately, He is ALWAYS in control. But being in control doesn't mean He always alters the course of how He initially set things into motion – as to how they would typically play out – because His plans often INCLUDE how He planned for things to more typically play out – per the laws of physics, etc. But again, much of God's control is in how He designed things, and as to the timing of when He put them into motion. Scripture tells us things like that, Pharoah was raised up to encounter God's power through Moses – as a witness. He orchestrated their clash, as well as the plagues that freed Israel.

But to always KNOW the greater good, one must have God's all-knowing understandings per His purposes – and so we DON'T always know the greater good – especially, per God's ETERNAL view. And what would be the greater good, anyway??? Would it not be events playing out per God's ultimate and perfect desires for their outcomes? And the greater, wiser BIG PICTURE good, per God's eternal purposes, is not something we can necessarily know. But we know that God can allow or prevent things. Anything He allows, He has purpose in allowing – or rather, He desired to allow a particular occurrence rather than to have prevented it. And He could have prevented a particular thing in the timing of how He put things into play at their very beginning – as He knew all about what they would eventually do or cause. Earthquakes kill people. We know God loves people – FAR more than we do. Either He desires to allow an earthquake or not. Does the fact that an earthquake kills people mean that He didn't love them? Or that its ultimate outcome was something other than what He desired it? How would that be possible with a Sovereign, all-powerful, all-knowing God? He either has the power over that outcome or not. Really, if He did not have control over such things, He would not be the God described in Scripture! And if God allows certain things that are difficult or that hurt us, who can say He ALWAYS allows such – or that He doesn't intervene wherever and whenever He so desires. But if He intervenes, then that means He had ALWAYS planned to ultimately intervene. If a clamity occurs, then we know that He ALWAYS had desired it come about. But can we understand how God utilizes His control, or understand His purposes, in a given situation? Typically, we cannot – and so we're often greatly disturbed over various outcomes and situations. But doubting that an outcome was under His control? Really, are you saying that because He didn't intervene, as the results were horrific and deeply troubling, is that He NEVER intervenes, doesn't care, was indifferent, or wasn't even under control?

Neo: Since you continuously misrepresent me, I am not sure I should answer this, seeing that I have in the past countless times repeated it. I have never said that the Bible is filled with lies. How much more can you distort my position?


Neo, you have repeatedly said you don't believe key passages of Scripture are true – typically, because you think they contradict YOUR confidence that YOUR views of whatever happened scientifically are correct. But when confronted with questions over how you decide what is true or not about Scripture – many things of which science hasn't a clue of – then you say you believe them (The Resurrection, prophecies, etc). Jesus confirms the OT – ALL of it. And neither He or His apostles warn not one word concerning any such passages as being distorted, myth, lies, blends of fiction and God's word, just fiction – not ONCE! And the very apostles whose words you say you believe, are the ones who say that Jesus confirmed the entirety of The Prophets, The Law, The Books of Moses, and individually, and quite a number of controversial passages. So, either you don't believe Jesus, concerning that the entire OT was TRUE (and the one we KNOW He had), or you don't believe He actually said this about the OT. And that neither Christ or any apostle states what you do about some key passages – that's a major problem you have with your view of Scripture! Don't say you don't believe key passages because scientifically it doesn't add up, and yet in the next breath say you believe all of these fantastical claims about Jesus, His miracles, His future prophecies, and His apostles' prophecies – when NONE of those add up scientifically. Really, you're cherrypicking what you believe without a consistent criteria, and as to what you apply your scientific determinism to.

Neo: Right now, it's all talk but you need to refute the biological evidence first, Phil. No two people can populate the world with all the diversity we see today. It is not possible. That is the claim and there's biological evidence for it.


First place, Neo, you have no idea whether or not God has indicated whether ALL of mankind came from Adam and Eve. A line surely came from them. But was Genesis I speaking of a prior creation of humans, with Adam and Eve coming far later? MAYBE. But the text doesn't say for certain. And there are many mysterious unknowns about genetics – a field that, per DNA studies, is still in its infancy – you sure are putting a lot of faith in what you think you know from science. Here, William Lane Craig details unknowns for which you seem to think don't detract from your certainty: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-historical-adam-and-eve - which are quite significant!

User avatar
Byblos
Old School
Posts: 5725
Joined: Mon Sep 12, 2005 12:21 pm
Christian: Yes
Location: NY

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby Byblos » Sun Jul 09, 2017 7:33 pm

PS, God doesn't have to micromanage for him to be in control. God sustains reality every second of every day. The fact that he allows evil, natural or otherwise, is not inconsistent with Him sustaining reality.
Let us proclaim the mystery of our faith: Christ has died, Christ is risen, Christ will come again.

Lord I am not worthy that you should enter under my roof, but only say the word and my soul shall be healed.

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby neo-x » Sun Jul 09, 2017 10:59 pm

Philip wrote:
Neo: Since you continuously misrepresent me, I am not sure I should answer this, seeing that I have in the past countless times repeated it. I have never said that the Bible is filled with lies. How much more can you distort my position?


Neo, you have repeatedly said you don't believe key passages of Scripture are true – typically, because you think they contradict YOUR confidence that YOUR views of whatever happened scientifically are correct. But when confronted with questions over how you decide what is true or not about Scripture – many things of which science hasn't a clue of – then you say you believe them (The Resurrection, prophecies, etc). Jesus confirms the OT – ALL of it. And neither He or His apostles warn not one word concerning any such passages as being distorted, myth, lies, blends of fiction and God's word, just fiction – not ONCE! And the very apostles whose words you say you believe, are the ones who say that Jesus confirmed the entirety of The Prophets, The Law, The Books of Moses, and individually, and quite a number of controversial passages. So, either you don't believe Jesus, concerning that the entire OT was TRUE (and the one we KNOW He had), or you don't believe He actually said this about the OT. And that neither Christ or any apostle states what you do about some key passages – that's a major problem you have with your view of Scripture! Don't say you don't believe key passages because scientifically it doesn't add up, and yet in the next breath say you believe all of these fantastical claims about Jesus, His miracles, His future prophecies, and His apostles' prophecies – when NONE of those add up scientifically. Really, you're cherrypicking what you believe without consistent criteria, and as to what you apply your scientific determinism to.



But that's where you are wrong. It doesn't have to add up scientifically. A lot doesn't in the Bible - take the resurrection or plenty of miracles. I don't have a problem with any of that. I believe in miracles. The reason I state that Genesis one is wrong factually is that everything else via TOE works out just fine. There is no need to appeal to miracles at all. Which you have to if you are going down your understanding of it. The YEC understanding of it, just fine because it concludes it as a miracle all the way. That is why it is still a better reading than yours. I don't agree with it, but I can understand it being at least consistent. Yours is stuck in the middle, trying to please both sides. You want to be a traditional inerranist and still want to be scientifically validated as well.

Had there been a need of miracles, I would surely imply that God may have created a pair with enough seeding diversity that all mankind could have evolved from there. But if evolution happened, unguided that is, then there is no reason to believe that God did it that way. Hence, since there is ample evidence that it did happen like that, I, therefore, must conclude that the evolution of man happened the same way.

First place, Neo, you have no idea whether or not God has indicated whether ALL of mankind came from Adam and Eve. A line surely came from them. But was Genesis I speaking of a prior creation of humans, with Adam and Eve coming far later? MAYBE. But the text doesn't say for certain. And there are many mysterious unknowns about genetics – a field that, per DNA studies, is still in its infancy – you sure are putting a lot of faith in what you think you know from science. Here, William Lane Craig details unknowns for which you seem to think don't detract from your certainty: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/the-hist ... am-and-eve - which are quite significant!

But the Bible clearly states that all came from Adam and Eve. How can you read differently from that?
Because you are trying to line up a defensible position at least somewhat to accepted science.
You hold so boldly to the inerrancy of the scriptures but you don't believe what it says straight up.

And for the scientific evidence - from your link:
Kevin Harris: He says,

Unfortunately, the scientific evidence shows that Adam and Eve could not have existed, at least in the way they’re portrayed in the Bible. Genetic data show no evidence of any human bottleneck as small as two people: there are simply too many different kinds of genes around for that to be true. There may have been a couple of “bottlenecks” (reduced population sizes) in the history of our species, but the smallest one not involving recent colonization is a bottleneck of roughly 10,000-15,000 individuals that occurred between 50,000 and 100,000 years ago. That’s as small a population as our ancestors had, and—note—it’s not two individuals.

Dr. Craig: What he is talking about there is the genetic diversity that is exhibited by the human population on Earth. The claim is that you can’t get that kind of genetic diversity from a bottleneck of just two people. You need a few thousand. I’ve heard as low as 2,000 individuals as this bottleneck.

What we need to understand is that these are genetic estimates based upon mathematical modeling and projections into the past. We know that that kind of mathematical modeling is based upon certain assumptions that may or may not be true, and can sometimes be wildly incorrect in their projections. So, although Coyne has a great, great deal of confidence (I think he even speaks of scientific certainty), that, I think, is hyperbole.[4] It could well be the case that these mathematical models are simply incorrect. I don’t want to minimize the challenge that is presented by the genetic data, but it is not as cut and dry as what Coyne presents it. I talk a little bit about this in the Defenders class in the section of Doctrine of Man where we look at the question of the origin of humanity.


Wow! that is all it took for you to convince yourself that the evidence is wrong?
He doesn't even try to show how it's wrong or conclude certainly why it is or it could be wrong by citing examples.

That is not even credible to be even called a minor rebuttal, Phil.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby neo-x » Sun Jul 09, 2017 11:52 pm

Byblos wrote:PS, God doesn't have to micromanage for him to be in control. God sustains reality every second of every day. The fact that he allows evil, natural or otherwise, is not inconsistent with Him sustaining reality.


And I agree with that. I also think he certainly control rare prophetic events.

Phil's claim is that everything happens because God allows it, ultimately. I say no, some things happen because of a necessity of the reality of nature and how it works. It doesn't mean God wills or even allows it to happen.

To make an inadequate analogy it makes God someone on the field but an idle player on the field. He is there, but he won't participate when evil happens or stop the other team doing a goal yet he is there, right there. It's the player you should shout to when they missed a pass not because he fumbled, but because he, just didn't.

To the contrary, I am saying God is a not on the field, he is sitting on the benches, he is not in the play at all. I can say that he started the game or made the game happen. But he is truly not meddling in the game. The game has to go on by its own rules. If someone gets hurt while playing, or the "other side" scores a goal, it's consequential because of the nature of the game. The game is self sustaining because it's creator created it so.

It seems so trivial at this point to insert God into the mix, what's he doing there if ultimately he is not an active participant? As both of you agree with me that evil natural or otherwise doesn't hamper God being sustaining reality. I agree it doesn't. my problem is with claims of control. It a futile expression in the sense Phil wants to use.

On one hand, in the latest post, he goes as far as to agree that control means even allowance or even "hands-off" as far as God is concerned but on the other hand, he also wants special intervention when needed to. Well, it's either that or it isn't. Either God is on the field participating or he isn't. What's control if you are hands off? It's so trivial and unnecessary.

This is like appealing to guided evolution. If evolution is true then it doesn't need guidance. To say that God controls it, then to me, is nothing but a word which has no true meaning as far the latest definition goes. However, in the sense that God ultimately created something definitely gives him the power to sustain everything, but then I submit that process like evolution aren't guided. The problem I see with Phil's argument is that God while even being "hands off" has still got an intended goal for processes like evolution even if He doesn't guide it. If it's going to be that way, why be "hands off" in the first place? And if he is actively guiding than why only guide evolution? why not guide other events in the world which hold far more relevance to issues such as love, loss, pain and suffering.

And as I have said before, God has foreknowledge of everything including random processes such as evolution, but that doesn't mean pre-determined results, except prophecies. In other words God knew that man would come out from evolution. But evolution didn't happen so that man could come out of it.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com

User avatar
neo-x
Ultimate Member
Posts: 3329
Joined: Sat Mar 26, 2011 2:13 am
Christian: Yes
Sex: Male
Contact:

Re: The Delusion of "Free Will"

Postby neo-x » Mon Jul 10, 2017 12:10 am

Phil, further to my post to your link:
Please note that such mathematical projections are based on evidence found which corresponds and validates such models, they are not based on arbitrary numbers so that Craig can dismiss them out of hand. You can't do that with evidence, you have to show specifically how and why it is wrong and mostly that is done via evidence to the contrary.

P.S I can't edit my post anymore for some reason.
People treat facts as relevant more when the facts tend to support their opinions. When the facts are against their opinions, they don't necessarily deny the facts, but they say the facts are less relevant or insignificant. This is ofcourse because believing things that make you feel comfortable, takes a priority. And I think that should not be the case if one is after truth.

http://johnadavid.wordpress.com


Return to “Philosophical Discussions”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests