My question about heaven....

[iago]

I was thinking, and I thought of a problem.  If a human has free will, and a human is allowed to interact with other humans, then that human can cause others to be upset or to suffer.  Therefore, in heaven, either:
a) People no longer have free will
b) People are not allowed to interact with each other
c) People do not live in eternal bliss

I don't see how all of those can possibly co-exist. 

Any idea what we will give up?

[rabbit]

Our humanity.

[Joe]

We give up sinful nature. We'll still have free will but benevolent intentions. Sure, we could make someone mad, but we won't want to.

[Sidoh]

Joe almost said it, but he left room for there to be the possibility of an outbreak of evil in heaven, which won't be possible.

You become benevolent.  You don't have "benevolent intentions."  Your decisions would reflect this belevolence.

I don't believe in free will anyway, though, so it doesn't really matter.

[d&q]

I think we'll give up free will. If we had it to begin with, that is.

[Rule]

I think we'll give up free will. If we had it to begin with, that is.

But that would be horrible for so many people... and isn't heaven supposed to be bliss for anyone?

[Kaleeko]

While it's quite probable that there really is no such thing as free will, I choose to believe in it because I'd like to believe that the choices I make don't already have a set outcome. It also leads to the idea of predestination, a theory that really angers me.

That brings me to the fact that I really don't like the idea of heaven. I think pain is part of living. Call me strange, but I enjoy the fact that there is a dark and a light side to life. That may be the "sinful being" in me talking. Haha.

[Sidoh]

But that would be horrible for so many people... and isn't heaven supposed to be bliss for anyone?

Yes, but look how simple it is to please the human mind without anything metaphysical.  *points at gamesnake* >_>

I don't understand how free will and an omniscient being can exist concurrently.  If the omniscient being knows everything that was, is and will be, he understands the fate of the universe and every concievable action that will lead to it.  Because of this, there is destiny.  Since everything is predetermined, free will is but an illusion.

[Joe]

I don't understand how free will and an omniscient being can exist concurrently.  If the omniscient being knows everything that was, is and will be, he understands the fate of the universe and every concievable action that will lead to it.  Because of this, there is destiny.  Since everything is predetermined, free will is but an illusion.

"God isn't logical", quoth you.

The way I see it, we do have free will (don't ask me to explain, it's just the way I like looking at things), and God can still be omniscient. He knows every single thing we've ever done or learned in the past, and how we would make a decision in any circumstance, because He knows every single thing about us there possibly is to know. In a way, I'd say He can't exactly see the future as if it's already occured, but He has no trouble whatsoever figuring out how we'd react and create our own futures. Er.. does that make sense to you? It's 3:54AM and I'm trying to explain my view of divinity.. hehe.

[AntiVirus]

I'm going to go with "B". Haha.

[Sidoh]

"God isn't logical", quoth you.

True, but meh.  Is there a place in the bible that says that free will exists?  I believe it's little more than illusion.  We're easy to fool.

The way I see it, we do have free will (don't ask me to explain, it's just the way I like looking at things), and God can still be omniscient. He knows every single thing we've ever done or learned in the past, and how we would make a decision in any circumstance, because He knows every single thing about us there possibly is to know. In a way, I'd say He can't exactly see the future as if it's already occured, but He has no trouble whatsoever figuring out how we'd react and create our own futures. Er.. does that make sense to you? It's 3:54AM and I'm trying to explain my view of divinity.. hehe.

He's present at every point of time by the definition of omniscient... he isn't just able to "intuitively" predict a situation, he already knows the outcome and every detail leading to it.

[iago]

You become benevolent.  You don't have "benevolent intentions."  Your decisions would reflect this belevolence.

That doesn't sound like a good thing, to me.

But wouldn't that cause paradoxes?  First of all, what one considers belevolent, others might consider malicious.  In the terrestrial realm, things like abortion and stem-cell research fall into that category.  I'm sure there are other problems like that, too, that don't come to mind.  But the point is, what happens when one person considers an action good, while another considers it bad?  Do they hold a vote, or does one person suffer?   

Additionally, you can offend somebody by accident while talking to somebody.  Like, you can mention that they appear to have gained weight, with the intention of saving their health, but it may offend the person.  Again, there are tons of examples, look at pretty much any conversation with women. 

What about humor?  The most common (and often considered 'best') jokes are ones that make fun of a person or a group of people.  That's why comedians do 'roasts' and why a lot of people avoid sitting at the front of a comedy club.


If it is indeed true that we are changed in this way, then I suspect we're living our lives wrong.  I mean, why do we spend all our time in this world working and trying to better ourselves?  I mean, the more logical thing to do would be to find some drug that makes you happy and benevolant, and make sure that everybody in the world takes it.  I mean, that's pretty much what happens in heaven, so why not simulate it on Earth?  (I'm sort of referring to Brave New World here). 

[d&q]

I think we'll give up free will. If we had it to begin with, that is.

But that would be horrible for so many people... and isn't heaven supposed to be bliss for anyone?

Like Sidoh said, if we did lack free will, we wouldn't even know the difference. So basically, we would all be eternally blissful, but still maintain what we would perceive as free will.

[Sidoh]

But wouldn't that cause paradoxes?  First of all, what one considers belevolent, others might consider malicious.  In the terrestrial realm, things like abortion and stem-cell research fall into that category.  I'm sure there are other problems like that, too, that don't come to mind.  But the point is, what happens when one person considers an action good, while another considers it bad?  Do they hold a vote, or does one person suffer?   

Additionally, you can offend somebody by accident while talking to somebody.  Like, you can mention that they appear to have gained weight, with the intention of saving their health, but it may offend the person.  Again, there are tons of examples, look at pretty much any conversation with women. 

What about humor?  The most common (and often considered 'best') jokes are ones that make fun of a person or a group of people.  That's why comedians do 'roasts' and why a lot of people avoid sitting at the front of a comedy club.


If it is indeed true that we are changed in this way, then I suspect we're living our lives wrong.  I mean, why do we spend all our time in this world working and trying to better ourselves?  I mean, the more logical thing to do would be to find some drug that makes you happy and benevolant, and make sure that everybody in the world takes it.  I mean, that's pretty much what happens in heaven, so why not simulate it on Earth?  (I'm sort of referring to Brave New World here). 

I thought of most of that as well, but it still makes sense to say it because you're ascending to heaven, which is controlled by an omniscient, benevolent being.  He will define what is right and wrong.  While I do recognize the validity on the example of cloning and stem cell research, I don't think that specific issue will cause any controversy because there will be no need for it.  In heaven, you're perfectly content.  There's no need for something like cloning.  You don't need to use stem cell research because it cures physical ailments which won't be present in heaven.

Remember that ascending to heaven entails the separation of the metaphysical (soul) from the physical.  I think that alone answers several questions, since you're no longer bound to the laws of physics.

[MyndFyre]

First of all, what one considers belevolent, others might consider malicious.

There aren't relativisms in God.  God is absolute, so some things are beneficial, and others are not.  Period.

He's present at every point of time by the definition of omniscient... he isn't just able to "intuitively" predict a situation, he already knows the outcome and every detail leading to it.

I tend to think of that as being a characteristic of being eternal, not necessarily omniscient, but meh.

It's like in Minority Report, when John Anderton rolls the ball towards Witmer, and they have an exchange along something like the following:

A: "Why'd you catch that?"
W: "It was going to fall."
A: "But it didn't fall.  How do you know it was going to?"
W: "It would have fallen when it went off the table."
A: "The fact that you knew it was going to fall and prevented it from falling didn't change the fact that it was going to fall."

Similarly, I think that just because God knows what decisions we're going to make doesn't mean that we don't make the decisions.

[iago]

I thought of most of that as well, but it still makes sense to say it because you're ascending to heaven, which is controlled by an omniscient, benevolent being.  He will define what is right and wrong.  While I do recognize the validity on the example of cloning and stem cell research, I don't think that specific issue will cause any controversy because there will be no need for it.  In heaven, you're perfectly content.  There's no need for something like cloning.  You don't need to use stem cell research because it cures physical ailments which won't be present in heaven.

Remember that ascending to heaven entails the separation of the metaphysical (soul) from the physical.  I think that alone answers several questions, since you're no longer bound to the laws of physics.

While it's true that those specific challenges will no longer arise, I would hope that other ones would.  If you are perfectly content all the time, that sounds like it would get boring.  I don't want to spend eternity content with my family, I want to overcome challenges and learn new things.  In Heaven, it doesn't sound like that would be possible. 

I don't know about you, but Heaven seems really, really boring to me. 

[Sidoh]

Being perfectly content doesn't allow boredom.

[nslay]

"God isn't logical", quoth you.

True, but meh.  Is there a place in the bible that says that free will exists?  I believe it's little more than illusion.  We're easy to fool.

Predestination, or Calvinism, is considered to be a heresy in Christianity.  Free will is an important aspect of Christianity because the choices made reflect your position with God or Satan.  Therefore, if predestination were the nature of the world, people would not only lack a soul*, but be predetermined to heaven or hell.  This does not sound like Christianity to me, a religion (in the bible) that emphasizes repentance repeatedly, an action that requires choice.

* People would lack a soul because the soul is the animating entity of the physical body, however, the physical body in a deterministic system is no different than, say, a mechanical clock.

[Sidoh]

Think of this situation.  I'm pretty sure that iago or someone else here posted this situation:

Imagine a computer that is completely aware of the outcome of every event in the universe.  It is totally aware of the reasons behind these events and all other events that have led to this event.  Since these outcomes are already known, how is it possible that the objects controlling these events have a choice?  The illusion of choice and free will is present, but it is not possible that the choice is actually present.

Now, replace "computer" with God and "objects" with "humans."

The lack of free will does not require the absence of a soul.  I don't think what you're saying is true, because you're assuming that in order for a soul to exist, free will must exist.  What if the soul is the battery for the clock?  What if it is what projects the predetermined actions?

Oh, and to specifically counter Joe's statement (again)

The way I see it, we do have free will (don't ask me to explain, it's just the way I like looking at things), and God can still be omniscient. He knows every single thing we've ever done or learned in the past, and how we would make a decision in any circumstance, because He knows every single thing about us there possibly is to know. In a way, I'd say He can't exactly see the future as if it's already occured, but He has no trouble whatsoever figuring out how we'd react and create our own futures. Er.. does that make sense to you? It's 3:54AM and I'm trying to explain my view of divinity.. hehe.

A reaction can only occur after an event, right?  Imagine this situation:

There are three "reactors" that have three different reactions based on a statement (one of the three possible reactions) passed to it by a different reactor.  Let each reactor be known as r1, r2 and r3, the result of a reaction as r1(x), r2(x) and r3(x) where x is the statement of the last reaction and each is defined as:



Now, imagine that one reactor sends a message to each of the other two and after each of the two reactors recieve a message, they send the output of their function (the statement) to the other two reactors.  Imagine this interval/value diagram (excuse the sloppiness):

http://sidoh.dark-wire.net/upload/files/4CXPQEGTBL-c5e72d69c437e532.jpg (Too big to add inline)

Now, even if God wasn't omniscient (you're saying he isn't by stating "he doesn't know the future"), but what you said was true, he'd still be able to predict every last detail that the future entails by this process.  This is obviously an enormously simplified version of reality, but you could classify each "reactor" with a function such as this and make a "diagram" such as the one I made.  Since God, by your statement, is able to determine the outcome of any decision, he'd be able to instantly determine the future as if what I've already said is true: he completely understands every detail of the future.

[nslay]

Think of this situation.  I'm pretty sure that iago or someone else here posted this situation:

Imagine a computer that is completely aware of the outcome of every event in the universe.  It is totally aware of the reasons behind these events and all other events that have led to this event.  Since these outcomes are already known, how is it possible that the objects controlling these events have a choice?  The illusion of choice and free will is present, but it is not possible that the choice is actually present.

Now, replace "computer" with God and "objects" with "humans."

You questioned where in the bible free will is mentioned.  I simply pointed out that Christians must believe in free will in order to be Christians.
Now then, you're assuming that God knows each outcome at every moment and concluding that the Universe is predetermined ... and why does God have to have this property again?  You're also assuming that each effect has a cause ... why do all effects have to have causes?

The lack of free will does not require the absence of a soul.  I don't think what you're saying is true, because you're assuming that in order for a soul to exist, free will must exist.  What if the soul is the battery for the clock?  What if it is what projects the predetermined actions?

No, but the lack of free will reduces an individual to the equivalent of an object, illusioned or disillusioned  by free will or not.
The sole separation between individual and object is the ability to choose.  By removing choice, an individual is, well, an elaborate computer ... and why should this have a soul?

[Sidoh]

You questioned where in the bible free will is mentioned.  I simply pointed out that Christians must believe in free will in order to be Christians.
Now then, you're assuming that God knows each outcome at every moment and concluding that the Universe is predetermined ... and why does God have to have this property again?  You're also assuming that each effect has a cause ... why do all effects have to have causes?

Because God is omniscient.  He literally knows everything.  It's part of his existence.  Omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, eternal, etc.

We may not be able to understand the cause behind something that is seemingly arbitrary, but an omniscient being would.

No, but the lack of free will reduces an individual to the equivalent of an object, illusioned or disillusioned  by free will or not.
The sole separation between individual and object is the ability to choose.  By removing choice, an individual is, well, an elaborate computer ... and why should this have a soul?

Why shouldn't it?

[nslay]

You questioned where in the bible free will is mentioned.  I simply pointed out that Christians must believe in free will in order to be Christians.
Now then, you're assuming that God knows each outcome at every moment and concluding that the Universe is predetermined ... and why does God have to have this property again?  You're also assuming that each effect has a cause ... why do all effects have to have causes?

Because God is omniscient.  He literally knows everything.  It's part of his existence.  Omniscient, omnipotent, benevolent, eternal, etc.

We may not be able to understand the cause behind something that is seemingly arbitrary, but an omniscient being would.

Right, but you haven't answered my question.  Why is God required to know everything that is to happen?  He can be all controlling and know intimately the inner workings of the universe, but why couldn't he, for example, create a universe that isn't deterministic?

No, but the lack of free will reduces an individual to the equivalent of an object, illusioned or disillusioned  by free will or not.
The sole separation between individual and object is the ability to choose.  By removing choice, an individual is, well, an elaborate computer ... and why should this have a soul?

Why shouldn't it?

Because the soul is thought to be some metaphysical (not of this universe) entity that animates the physical body or controls mentality.  If the universe requires predestination, then it is not possible for a soul to control a body that has already a predestined life.  The soul couldn't possibly be a "battery" that performs predestined actions because, again, it is not constrained by the universe.
We can use your computer example to demonstrate that it is not possible for this to happen.  Suppose a processor is an "individual" and the "universe" in which it operates is the instruction set.  The processor is bound by the instruction set, much like individuals are bound by a deterministic universe.  Let's consider the processor's "life" to be a predetermined sequence of machine code.  The processor's actions and "life" are predetermined.  Suppose, now, that a user controls the processor (or becomes the "soul").  The user is not constrained by the instruction set and is not required to execute instructions in any systematic fashion that would normally bound the processor, thus violating the predetermined nature of the instruction set and machine code ... a contradiction.  In essence, because the user can control the processor, the user factors in a possibility that machine code is not executed properly, but in predestination, there is no such thing as possibility. 

[iago]

I think this boils down to the issue: what does 'free will' mean?  If somebody knows exactly what you're going to do, does that mean you aren't free to do it?  I mean, you're doing it by your own free will, but somebody knows you will, but does that make the action any less free?  Somebody posted something from Minority Report, which asks that same question.

[Sidoh]

Right, but you haven't answered my question.  Why is God required to know everything that is to happen?  He can be all controlling and know intimately the inner workings of the universe, but why couldn't he, for example, create a universe that isn't deterministic?

Because intimately knowing the inner workings of the universe results in omniscience.  If he is able to understand every last detail of every last "reaction" in the universe, he would know what the future entails.

Because the soul is thought to be some metaphysical (not of this universe) entity that animates the physical body or controls mentality.  If the universe requires predestination, then it is not possible for a soul to control a body that has already a predestined life.  The soul couldn't possibly be a "battery" that performs predestined actions because, again, it is not constrained by the universe.
We can use your computer example to demonstrate that it is not possible for this to happen.  Suppose a processor is an "individual" and the "universe" in which it operates is the instruction set.  The processor is bound by the instruction set, much like individuals are bound by a deterministic universe.  Let's consider the processor's "life" to be a predetermined sequence of machine code.  The processor's actions and "life" are predetermined.  Suppose, now, that a user controls the processor (or becomes the "soul").  The user is not constrained by the instruction set and is not required to execute instructions in any systematic fashion that would normally bound the processor, thus violating the predetermined nature of the instruction set and machine code ... a contradiction.  In essence, because the user can control the processor, the user factors in a possibility that machine code is not executed properly, but in predestination, there is no such thing as possibility. 

I think the term "soul" is ambiguous and opinionated.  I don't think it can be accurately defined since it cannot be studied, researched or viewed.

I should clarify that although, at this point, I still don't think free will exists, that I don't think it would be out of God's power (as you mentioned) to create a non-deterministic universe.  He is, afterall, omnipotent. .  However, I like this argument.

[nslay]

I think this boils down to the issue: what does 'free will' mean?  If somebody knows exactly what you're going to do, does that mean you aren't free to do it?  I mean, you're doing it by your own free will, but somebody knows you will, but does that make the action any less free?  Somebody posted something from Minority Report, which asks that same question.

When I talk about free will, I am implying that at any given moment, an individual is able to choose an action.  That is to say, there could be many possible actions that can occurr, even if one of those actions is most likely to occurr.  While some things can be known (without reasonable doubt) in advance, that doesn't necessarily invalidate any other possible outcome.  Suppose someone throws a punch at you, one could say that you are most likely to dodge the punch, but that doesn't necessarily rule out the possibility that you don't dodge.  So no, it doesn't make it any less free. 
My deal with predestination is that there is only one possible outcome at any given moment.  But I want to note something that is counter-intuitive, a fallacy I made on the vL forums once upon a time.  Just because there is only one possible outcome at every moment, doesn't necessarily mean the outcome can be predicted in advance.
An example can be shown with a very simple discrete time dynamical system:
x_n+1=ax_n(1-x_n)
This is a very simple recursion of the logistic map.  The variable 'a' is whats known as a bifurcation variable.
Now, if a > 3.57, the iterates (the terms generated by the recursion) experience a mathematical behavior known as chaos (well, there are strange windows after a > 3.57 where the iteration becomes periodic again).
Now, I claim to you, that even given x₀, the iterates are unpredictable after a certain point.  When I say "unpredictable", I mean the impossibility to know for certain future iterates without using the recurssion.  If you used the recurrsion to predict a future iteration, say x₁₀₀₀₀, then that'd be like predicting the weather for Thursday, by waiting until Thursday.
Now, the scary aspect of chaos, is that its predetermined.  So, in the case of a predestined universe, it's possible to lack the ability to predict.
So I emphasize, the difference between a non-determistic system and a deterministic system is only the presence of probability.  While some things can be known, without reasonable doubt, to occurr in advance, this does not invalidate other possible outcomes for a given moment.  Whereas, in the case of a deterministic system, while something can be unpredictable, there is only but one possible outcome at every given moment.

Now, I leave you with this question:
If we could rewind a day ... would the day happen exactly the same way?

See also:
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Bifurcation.html
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/Chaos.html

[iago]

So wait, can God create a universe that's so non-deterministic that even he cannot predict the outcomes?

Can God create a rock that's so heavy that even he can't lift it?

If a force that cannot be stopped meets with an object that cannot be moved, what happens?

Those are all pretty self-contradictory.  The first one poses a pretty big problem here, because who's to say that our Universe isn't the non-deterministic one?

[Joe]

Apparently heaven is 24/7 worship of God, and we'll never get bored. If you think you're going to get bored, according to my pastor, that's the sinful nature. Personally I think it's entirely possible it could be another one of the church's stunts to explain the unexplainable, but whatever.

As for free will, MyndFyre totally explained my logic. Thanks!

And to iago, God can not possibly create a rock he can't lift, because his strength is infinite. There's a quote of Jesus somewhere that says if we tell a mountain to go jump in the ocean, and believe it will (faith, of course), it will. Likewise, God tells the rock to hop up in the air. Simple enough.

[Kaleeko]

Apparently heaven is 24/7 worship of God, and we'll never get bored. If you think you're going to get bored, according to my pastor, that's the sinful nature.

I must be pretty damn sinful, then. Drat.

Someone, quick, save my soul!! Douse me with holy water and pray to Jebus! Help me find the path to righteousness so I can eternally sing praises about a being that allowed me to sin so that he could save me from my gosh darn horrible self!

... Okay, I'm sorry. That wasn't very nice. I just have never liked the idea of perfection. Or the idea of allowing imperfection in the first place. If I believe in God and ever get to meet him, that's what I'd ask him. But, according to the idea of Heaven, if I ever even got there, by that point I wouldn't even care about my questions anymore. All work put into life and thought and philosophy and the search for knowledge, totally wasted so I can become a genderless, totally submissive unthinking blob for the rest of eternity. THAT JUST SOUNDS SO AWESOME.

.....

I'd like to point out that this may not be my real view. It may. But it may not. So Sidoh, don't eat me alive Because I'm Wrong. Kthnx. <3

[Sidoh]

And to iago, God can not possibly create a rock he can't lift, because his strength is infinite. There's a quote of Jesus somewhere that says if we tell a mountain to go jump in the ocean, and believe it will (faith, of course), it will. Likewise, God tells the rock to hop up in the air. Simple enough.

His power is infinite.  You just said it wasn't.  You're assuming there is a limit to one, which there isn't. 

Your logic doesn't make any sense because of exactly what iago said: "God can create a universe that's so non-deterministic that even he cannot predict the outcomes?"  You're also asuming God can create a word that he can't predict, which states that his knowledge and understanding of the Universe is limited, which isn't true.  Until you come up with a valid explanation, I don't suggest you act like you've made a breakthrough in philosophy. :p

[Joe]

And to iago, God can not possibly create a rock he can't lift, because his strength is infinite. There's a quote of Jesus somewhere that says if we tell a mountain to go jump in the ocean, and believe it will (faith, of course), it will. Likewise, God tells the rock to hop up in the air. Simple enough.

His power is infinite.  You just said it wasn't.  You're assuming there is a limit to one, which there isn't. 

Your logic doesn't make any sense because of exactly what iago said: "God can create a universe that's so non-deterministic that even he cannot predict the outcomes?"  You're also asuming God can create a word that he can't predict, which states that his knowledge and understanding of the Universe is limited, which isn't true.  Until you come up with a valid explanation, I don't suggest you act like you've made a breakthrough in philosophy. :p

I didn't read that part. I simply meant to state that God can throw any rock he wants to up into the air.

[nslay]

And to iago, God can not possibly create a rock he can't lift, because his strength is infinite. There's a quote of Jesus somewhere that says if we tell a mountain to go jump in the ocean, and believe it will (faith, of course), it will. Likewise, God tells the rock to hop up in the air. Simple enough.

His power is infinite.  You just said it wasn't.  You're assuming there is a limit to one, which there isn't. 

Your logic doesn't make any sense because of exactly what iago said: "God can create a universe that's so non-deterministic that even he cannot predict the outcomes?"  You're also asuming God can create a word that he can't predict, which states that his knowledge and understanding of the Universe is limited, which isn't true.  Until you come up with a valid explanation, I don't suggest you act like you've made a breakthrough in philosophy. :p

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe my life is predetermined, and that my choices are not my responsibility.  You have not answered my question as to why God must know, exactly, the future.  Your answer is "He is omnipotent," which is circular reason.  As to God creating a non-deterministic universe, I see no reason why he couldn't.  Why would his knowledge of a non-deterministic universe be limited?  We certainly understand that simple discrete time dynamical system above, yet we cannot predict it ... whats your point?
I don't suggest you assume any property of God, especially one that is written in a book by people who had little to no understanding of the world around them.  I suggested you watch "The Exodus Decoded" for a reason.

[Sidoh]

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe my life is predetermined, and that my choices are not my responsibility.

I'm not forcing you to believe anything, am I?  I'm merely presenting my beliefs and the justifications behind them.

You have not answered my question as to why God must know, exactly, the future.  Your answer is "He is omnipotent," which is circular reason.  As to God creating a non-deterministic universe, I see no reason why he couldn't.  Why would his knowledge of a non-deterministic universe be limited?  We certainly understand that simple discrete time dynamical system above, yet we cannot predict it ... whats your point?
I don't suggest you assume any property of God, especially one that is written in a book by people who had little to no understanding of the world around them.

I said omniscient, but that is entailed in omnipotency in a convoluted sort of way, I suppose.  I'm not aware of a monotheistic religion that worships a deity that can be compared with God that doesn't believe their creator to follow these properties.

Hahaha, as I went to Wikipedia to make sure that the properties of God I believe are true are more objective than you're suggesting they are, the exact same argument appears:

All the great medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God, [3] attempting to wrestle with the contradictions God's attributes seem to imply. For example, God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act. If he does know this, their apparent free will is illusory; and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient. [4] Similar difficulties follow from the proposition that God is the source of all moral obligation. If nothing would be right or wrong without God's commands, then his commands appear arbitrary. If his commands are based on fundamental principles that even he cannot change, then he is not omnipotent. [5]

I suggested you watch "The Exodus Decoded" for a reason.

I'm sorry, did I miss something?  I don't recall this recommendation...

[nslay]

I'm sorry, but I refuse to believe my life is predetermined, and that my choices are not my responsibility.

I'm not forcing you to believe anything, am I?  I'm merely presenting my beliefs and the justifications behind them.

You have not answered my question as to why God must know, exactly, the future.  Your answer is "He is omnipotent," which is circular reason.  As to God creating a non-deterministic universe, I see no reason why he couldn't.  Why would his knowledge of a non-deterministic universe be limited?  We certainly understand that simple discrete time dynamical system above, yet we cannot predict it ... whats your point?
I don't suggest you assume any property of God, especially one that is written in a book by people who had little to no understanding of the world around them.

I said omniscient, but that is entailed in omnipotency in a convoluted sort of way, I suppose.  I'm not aware of a monotheistic religion that worships a deity that can be compared with God that doesn't believe their creator to follow these properties.

Hahaha, as I went to Wikipedia to make sure that the properties of God I believe are true are more objective than you're suggesting they are, the exact same argument appears:

All the great medieval philosophers developed arguments for the existence of God, [3] attempting to wrestle with the contradictions God's attributes seem to imply. For example, God's omniscience implies that he knows how free agents will choose to act. If he does know this, their apparent free will is illusory; and if he does not know it, he is not omniscient. [4] Similar difficulties follow from the proposition that God is the source of all moral obligation. If nothing would be right or wrong without God's commands, then his commands appear arbitrary. If his commands are based on fundamental principles that even he cannot change, then he is not omnipotent. [5]

I could give a cadoodle what medieval philsophers thought. Newton thought that everything could be perfectly predicted too ... now we have many non-Newtonian sciences like Quantum Mechanics.  Now, about that question as to why God must know exactly the future?  Instead of referring me to authorities, actually reason with me.

I suggested you watch "The Exodus Decoded" for a reason.

I'm sorry, did I miss something?  I don't recall this recommendation...

Look on this forum.

[Joe]

@Sidoh: It was in a different topic, but during school hours, so unless you have college off on Thursday (or haven't started yet) you couldn't see it anyhow. .

@nslay: From your posts, you seem to be religious. Out of curiocity, am I right?

[Sidoh]

I could give a cadoodle what medieval philsophers thought. Newton thought that everything could be perfectly predicted too ... now we have many non-Newtonian sciences like Quantum Mechanics.  Now, about that question as to why God must know exactly the future?  Instead of referring me to authorities, actually reason with me.

Because God is, by definition, omniscient.  It's like asking why gravity has an inward acceleration.  I realize that isn't the best analogy because you can prove that gravity has an inward acceleration, but it gets the idea across.  I consider myself Christian (despite my beliefs that you have called "heresy."), which states that God is omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, eternal, omnipresent, etc.

Remember that this is a highly religious debate (it is, after all, in the religious forum).  The presence of subjective material is invariably true here, I think.  I apologize if what I've said has seemed at all objective.

If you don't believe God to be all-knowing, do you mind explaining why?

Look on this forum.

Don't assume that I've read every topic.

@Sidoh: It was in a different topic, but during school hours, so unless you have college off on Thursday (or haven't started yet) you couldn't see it anyhow. .

I have one class on Thursdays.  The rest of the days I have four or five.

@nslay: From your posts, you seem to be religious. Out of curiocity, am I right?

curiosity.  I've told you that a few times... wouldn't want you to get docked off points on an English paper...

[Joe]

I'm in a sped English class. Sophomore work is this:

Fill in a verb from the above word bank to complete this sentence: Fred drove a car.

[Sidoh]

I'm in a sped English class. Sophomore work is this:

Fill in a verb from the above word bank to complete this sentence: Fred drove a car.

...

[d&q]

I'm in a sped English class. Sophomore work is this:

Fill in a verb from the above word bank to complete this sentence: Fred drove a car.

How could you possibly be proud of this?!

[nslay]

I could give a cadoodle what medieval philsophers thought. Newton thought that everything could be perfectly predicted too ... now we have many non-Newtonian sciences like Quantum Mechanics.  Now, about that question as to why God must know exactly the future?  Instead of referring me to authorities, actually reason with me.

Because God is, by definition, omniscient.  It's like asking why gravity has an inward acceleration.  I realize that isn't the best analogy because you can prove that gravity has an inward acceleration, but it gets the idea across.  I consider myself Christian (despite my beliefs that you have called "heresy."), which states that God is omnipotent, omniscient, benevolent, eternal, omnipresent, etc.

Remember that this is a highly religious debate (it is, after all, in the religious forum).  The presence of subjective material is invariably true here, I think.  I apologize if what I've said has seemed at all objective.

If you don't believe God to be all-knowing, do you mind explaining why?

No apologies needed.  I'm coming from this perspective: This world isn't predetermined => God couldn't possibly know, perfectly, the future.  I'm no physicist, but if we examine the Uncertainty Principle, we have position and momentum of an electron that cannot be perfectly determined.  If the principle holds, then no matter what precision we acquire, we still cannot determine the position and the momentum perfectly.  There is no, "proof" per ce that the world isn't predetermined, but I think that stands as evidence.  We also exhibit apparent randomness in radioactive decay, or so I've been told.  You might argue that it is due to our lack of understanding on the subatomic level.  On the other hand, if the world were predetermined and exhibited mathematical chaos, then there can be no perfect prediction made without actually progessing the system.  Sort of like the weather, you cannot predict the weather (at least with good accuracy) a month or year from now.  
You have a different perspective.  You start with a definition of God and then make a conclusion of the universe.  There is nothing wrong with that, especially if there is no proof that the universe is or is not predetermined.

As for "heresy."  Don't take it personally, I'm not criticizing your beliefs but only noting that Christianity generally holds predestination as false.

[iago]

His power is infinite.  You just said it wasn't.  You're assuming there is a limit to one, which there isn't. 

Your logic doesn't make any sense because of exactly what iago said: "God can create a universe that's so non-deterministic that even he cannot predict the outcomes?"  You're also asuming God can create a word that he can't predict, which states that his knowledge and understanding of the Universe is limited, which isn't true.  Until you come up with a valid explanation, I don't suggest you act like you've made a breakthrough in philosophy. :p

It seems to me that omnipotents is fundamentally self-contradictory.  I don't care how powerful a God is, I suspect that logic can't be broken.  Or do you think it's possible that God can both create an infinitely immovable object, and also that he can move it?

[Sidoh]

No apologies needed.  I'm coming from this perspective: This world isn't predetermined => God couldn't possibly know, perfectly, the future.  I'm no physicist, but if we examine the Uncertainty Principle, we have position and momentum of an electron that cannot be perfectly determined.  If the principle holds, then no matter what precision we acquire, we still cannot determine the position and the momentum perfectly.  There is no, "proof" per ce that the world isn't predetermined, but I think that stands as evidence.  We also exhibit apparent randomness in radioactive decay, or so I've been told.  You might argue that it is due to our lack of understanding on the subatomic level.  On the other hand, if the world were predetermined and exhibited mathematical chaos, then there can be no perfect prediction made without actually progessing the system.  Sort of like the weather, you cannot predict the weather (at least with good accuracy) a month or year from now.  
You have a different perspective.  You start with a definition of God and then make a conclusion of the universe.  There is nothing wrong with that, especially if there is no proof that the universe is or is not predetermined.

As for "heresy."  Don't take it personally, I'm not criticizing your beliefs but only noting that Christianity generally holds predestination as false.

Hehe, I'm familiar with the uncertainty principle.  I think it's (delta)x(delta)t >= h, yes?  There's also one for energy and time.  Yes, I believe that at some point, there are things that we can't determine, prove predict or explain.  It is a part of having a finite intelligence.  I would guess that you're familiar with Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem?  It states that, no matter how many things we are able to uncover, there are certain constituents of the explanation that must be simply assumed as true.  This isn't directly related to our discussion, but it does powerfully represent the limit of our intelligence and ability to comprehend, even though that is already obvious.

It seems to me that omnipotents is fundamentally self-contradictory.  I don't care how powerful a God is, I suspect that logic can't be broken.  Or do you think it's possible that God can both create an infinitely immovable object, and also that he can move it?

Omnipotency does present several logical fallacies, I agree.  Since logic is supposed to be the representation of truth, I don't think it can be broken either.  However, perhaps there is some unforseen portion of logic that we haven't discovered or are uncapable of discovering.

[Joe]

I'm in a sped English class. Sophomore work is this:

Fill in a verb from the above word bank to complete this sentence: Fred drove a car.

How could you possibly be proud of this?!

I never said I was proud. I said spelling curiosity wrong wouldn't get me marked down.

[d&q]

I mean, why would you let yourself be placed in a special english class? I know you're smarter than that.

[Joe]

I mean, why would you let yourself be placed in a special english class? I know you're smarter than that.

If I confronted my teacher saying that, he'd respond with something like "You proved the exact opposite by failing last year." I know I'm smarter than that too, but as you can see from my grammar here, whatever we're going to learn in Composition I'm already competent in, and whatever we'll learn in Literacy will bore me, so I'd rather stay with the easy crap than the boring and less easy crap.

[Rule]

but as you can see from my grammar here, whatever we're going to learn in Composition I'm already competent in, and whatever we'll learn in Literacy will bore me

Pretty smug attitude considering things... it's not going to get you anywhere.

[Sidoh]

If I confronted my teacher saying that, he'd respond with something like "You proved the exact opposite by failing last year." I know I'm smarter than that too, but as you can see from my grammar here, whatever we're going to learn in Composition I'm already competent in, and whatever we'll learn in Literacy will bore me, so I'd rather stay with the easy crap than the boring and less easy crap.

Competent is not excellent.

[dark_drake]

@all the debate over free will: In my honors class, the question of free will came up in our discussion of the Iliad.  Basically, the professor flat out said that he would not discuss it because it's a pointless debate because you can't prove either side.

[Joe]

it's a pointless debate because you can't prove either side.

Bingo. I'm personally getting tired of it myself because it turns out we each state our points, the opposition states their points, wash and repeat. .

To go along with what I just said, I've got something for you to think about (debaters, not dark_drake): If we did not have free will, why is God making us debate this right now instead of just making us all know we don't have free will? A more involved question would be "Assuming we don't have free will, when will God get tired of playing this RPG with our lives and blow us all up?", but I'd like to see you're opinions on the former one first.

[Sidoh]

Basically, the professor flat out said that he would not discuss it because it's a pointless debate because you can't prove either side.

You can't prove either side using purely logic, but if it becomes a pseudo-religious debate and properties of a deity arise, interesting arguments and contradictions appear, which is precisely what this has become.

Bingo. I'm personally getting tired of it myself because it turns out we each state our points, the opposition states their points, wash and repeat. .

Throw in a little bit of you not understanding and completely ignoring some points and you're about right.

To go along with what I just said, I've got something for you to think about (debaters, not dark_drake): If we did not have free will, why is God making us debate this right now instead of just making us all know we don't have free will? A more involved question would be "Assuming we don't have free will, when will God get tired of playing this RPG with our lives and blow us all up?", but I'd like to see you're opinions on the former one first.

That's like asking "Why doesn't God show himself if he wants people to believe in him?"  Because it isn't necessary.  Why is energy conserved?  Because it is.

[dark_drake]

Well, my thoughts on it.  I believe in free will.  I think it's silly to believe that God, at the time of creating a soul, decides if that person is going to heaven or hell.  If it was predetermined, wouldn't that be what God did? 

[Sidoh]

Well, my thoughts on it.  I believe in free will.  I think it's silly to believe that God, at the time of creating a soul, decides if that person is going to heaven or hell.  If it was predetermined, wouldn't that be what God did? 

God isn't powerful enough to know?  I think that's silly to believe.

[dark_drake]

God isn't powerful enough to know?  I think that's silly to believe.

Why did God tell Adam not to eat of the tree if He knew Adam would? Why did he test Abraham if He knew Abraham would obey?

[Sidoh]

Why did God tell Adam not to eat of the tree if He knew Adam would? Why did he test Abraham if He knew Abraham would obey?

Why couldn't he?  Why would he not?  There are several questions aside from these that have no bearing on the existence of free will.  I already brought one of them up:

"Why doesn't God show himself if he wants people to believe in him?"

[dark_drake]

Why did God tell Adam not to eat of the tree if He knew Adam would? Why did he test Abraham if He knew Abraham would obey?

Why couldn't he?  Why would he not?  There are several questions aside from these that have no bearing on the existence of free will.  I already brought one of them up:

From what I've read, God does things for reasons.   What reason would there be to test Abraham if he already knew what would happen?

"Why doesn't God show himself if he wants people to believe in him?"

Does he want people to decide for themselves?  That's the point of faith, isn't it? Believing in what you can't see.

However, this debate is going to go nowhere as no one is capable of proving it either way beyond reasonable doubt. 

[Sidoh]

From what I've read, God does things for reasons.   What reason would there be to test Abraham if he already knew what would happen?

Yes, but that doesn't mean we're meant or even capable of understanding those reasons.

Given that free will does exist, are you implying that God would not foresee that outcome of Abrahams trials?  Are you saying that his intelligence and comprehension has a limit?

Does he want people to decide for themselves?  That's the point of faith, isn't it? Believing in what you can't see.

He's inherently incapable of knowing the decisions of each and every person existing?

However, this debate is going to go nowhere as no one is capable of proving it either way beyond reasonable doubt. 

I'm not really trying to persuade anyone.  It's blatantly obvious that this is a highly subjective debate and has little potential in terms of covincing anyone away from their beliefs.

I am, however, interested in hearing the justifications behind beliefs that others have.

[dark_drake]

Yes, but that doesn't mean we're meant or even capable of understanding those reasons.

Given that free will does exist, are you implying that God would not foresee that outcome of Abrahams trials?  Are you saying that his intelligence and comprehension has a limit?

I believe God tested Abraham because He wanted to make sure that Abraham did love his Lord above all else.  God wanted to make sure that Abraham would withhold nothing from God if God asked.  God did not know if Abraham would do it or not; that's why, at least in my opinion, He put Abraham to the test. 

He's inherently incapable of knowing the decisions of each and every person existing?

I think He can have a fairly good guess by looking into our thoughts and such, but He cannot influence what we think directly.

[Sidoh]

I believe God tested Abraham because He wanted to make sure that Abraham did love his Lord above all else.  God wanted to make sure that Abraham would withhold nothing from God if God asked.  God did not know if Abraham would do it or not; that's why, at least in my opinion, He put Abraham to the test. 

So you're saying God isn't omniscient.

I think He can have a fairly good guess by looking into our thoughts and such, but He cannot influence what we think directly.

So you're saying he isn't omniscient or omnipotent?

[dark_drake]

I believe God tested Abraham because He wanted to make sure that Abraham did love his Lord above all else.  God wanted to make sure that Abraham would withhold nothing from God if God asked.  God did not know if Abraham would do it or not; that's why, at least in my opinion, He put Abraham to the test. 

So you're saying God isn't omniscient.

I'm saying God tested Abraham to be sure.  If you want to take it that way, then I'm a blasphemer.

I think He can have a fairly good guess by looking into our thoughts and such, but He cannot influence what we think directly.

So you're saying he isn't omniscient or omnipotent?

He can give us signs, deter us by creating obstacles, but I don't think He can force us to do everything his way.  God created man and I believe He gave man the choice of whether or not to believe in Him.  I think having people willingly believe in Him would mean more than an army of robots who believe in Him because He programmed them that way.

[Sidoh]

I'm saying God tested Abraham to be sure.  If you want to take it that way, then I'm a blasphemer.

If God was unable to determine the outcome of Abraham's trials, he couldn't have been omniscient.

He can give us signs, deter us by creating obstacles, but I don't think He can force us to do everything his way.  God created man and I believe He gave man the choice of whether or not to believe in Him.  I think having people willingly believe in Him would mean more than an army of robots who believe in Him because He programmed them that way.

Which fully verifies my last statement.  You don't think he's omnipotent or omniscient.  If he was, he'd be able to do anything which you classified as "impossible" above.

[dark_drake]

So everything you've ever done that was wrong, every sin was because God wanted you to?  God wants people to go to hell, so he decides that they're going to die by killing themselves, right?  God decides that he doesn't like Jewish people, so he wanted Hitler to go ahead and exterminate them?  I refuse to believe that.

[Sidoh]

So everything you've ever done that was wrong, every sin was because God wanted you to?

Yes.

God wants people to go to hell, so he decides that they're going to die by killing themselves, right?

Yes.

God decides that he doesn't like Jewish people, so he wanted Hitler to go ahead and exterminate them?  I refuse to believe that.

"Everything happens for a reason."  Perhaps it was in order to "influence" (I use the word lightly since I'm on the side of the argument that doesn't believe in free will) people to destroy Hitler.  It isn't necessary that it happened because God doesn't like Jewish people.

How can you believe that this being created the universe... every detail, every atom, every law that governs reactions and every person, yet he has a complete lack of control over our sentience?

[Rule]

How can you believe that this being created the universe... every detail, every atom, every law that governs reactions and every person, yet he has a complete lack of control over our sentience?

He may have power over us, but supposedly we are allowed to make our own choices, as though we are a conscious entity with free will.  Believing in determinism precludes taking most popular religions seriously, unless you interpret them in a very unorthodox way.  I am sure that any official position on this topic from the Catholic or Anglican church would include a demand that humans have free will.

[Sidoh]

I'm aware of the state of this argument in most religious environments, but as Einstein said: "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind."  Science is an elaborate form of logic, wouldn't you say?

I am not saying (and refuse to say) that I believe with no doubt that free will is nonexistent, but I do find the argument interesting and take the chance to argue against it when I get the chance.  People find it frightening that they aren't in control of their own life.

[Joe]

God isn't powerful enough to know?  I think that's silly to believe.

Why did God tell Adam not to eat of the tree if He knew Adam would? Why did he test Abraham if He knew Abraham would obey?

When God asked Abraham to sacrafice Isaac, I doubt it was for God's own good, but to show Abraham more about Abraham himself and how much he fears God. As for the tree, I dunno, but for other kinds of tests..

EDIT -
People also say that the Holocaust was God's vengeance on the Jews for something they did a mega-long time ago. I can't remember what that was, though.

[d&q]

I think somewhere along the line the difference between deciding and knowing was slightly blurred.

[dark_drake]

God wants people to go to hell, so he decides that they're going to die by killing themselves, right?

Yes.

God decides that he doesn't like Jewish people, so he wanted Hitler to go ahead and exterminate them?  I refuse to believe that.

"Everything happens for a reason."  Perhaps it was in order to "influence" (I use the word lightly since I'm on the side of the argument that doesn't believe in free will) people to destroy Hitler.  It isn't necessary that it happened because God doesn't like Jewish people.

But He's benevolent?

How can you believe that this being created the universe... every detail, every atom, every law that governs reactions and every person, yet he has a complete lack of control over our sentience?

God created man in His image.  God, I'm assuming, has free will, and I assume that it's one of the traits that He put into man. You could just as easily say he withheld that privelege, but neither statements are provable. 

[Joe]

In my opinion the reason why humanity fell was because God gave us free will, and the choice to fall or not. Adam just made the wrong choice.

I fail to realize why God would create humanity, make it sin, and kill Himself to redeem us.

[Sidoh]

But He's benevolent?

How do you purpose that it's possible for us to see the ultimate effect of each catastrophy?  Perhaps more good resulted in its doing than would have if it hadn't happened. 

God created man in His image.  God, I'm assuming, has free will, and I assume that it's one of the traits that He put into man. You could just as easily say he withheld that privelege, but neither statements are provable. 

That seems very much like a falacy.  If God created us in his image (proven by similar traits we share), we wouldn't have sin.

In my opinion the reason why humanity fell was because God gave us free will, and the choice to fall or not. Adam just made the wrong choice.

You believe that it was impossible for God to determine that Adam would choose to sin or that the possibility was even there?  Do you think that God was playing dice when he created this world: that he created Adam knowing that he "might" sin but might not?  You think it was beyond God's capabilities to foresee what Adam would choose?

There's a Bible passage that says something to the effect of "I've known you since before you were born."  How could this be possible if God wasn't able to detect the future?

I fail to realize why God would create humanity, make it sin, and kill Himself to redeem us.

I think you mean "fail to understand."  He's God.  There are far more mysterious things you could choose to attach that phrase to.

[Joe]

@First quote:

I don't think God was unable to detect what Adam was doing, nor do I think God couldn't toss on the mind control cap and make Adam do whatever God wanted, but I do believe that God gave Adam the choice to sin or not. Sure, God knew what Adam was going to choose, but the choice was in Adam's hands, not God's. So I suppose I'm saying something along the lines of God's permissive will vs God's perfect will. In God's perfect will, He would have caused Adam not to sin, but His permissive will allowed Adam to do whatever he wanted.

@Second quote:
Yeah, I guess understand would work better, but I still stick by what I meant there.

EDIT -
Added more proper nouns to make it more obvious what I was saying.

[Sidoh]

I don't think God was unable to detect what Adam was doing, nor do I think God couldn't toss on the mind control cap and make Adam do whatever God wanted, but I do believe that God gave Adam the choice to sin or not. Sure, God knew what Adam was going to choose, but the choice was in Adam's hands, not God's. So I suppose I'm saying something along the lines of God's permissive will vs God's perfect will. In God's perfect will, He would have caused Adam not to sin, but His permissive will allowed Adam to do whatever he wanted.

If God knew Adam's decision, don't you think he created him with those intentions?  That would prove what I've been trying to pound through your skull for the last few pages of posts... omniscience implies the existence of destiny.

Yeah, I guess understand would work better, but I still stick by what I meant there.

Here are some examples, then:

Why did God make the Universe in six days?  Why didn't he choose six milliseconds?  Why did he even create it at all?

Why did God make it necessary to kill his son in order to redeem our sins?

There are countless examples such as these that don't necessarily have a comprehensive "reason" that can be percieved by our finite minds.

[Joe]

Let me put that question (why did God make it so Jesus had to die) a bit closer to you. You have a son who's.. say.. 3. Defenseless. Zorm brings his robot over to your house. Are you going to aim it at your son and hit the "kill" button? I doubt God would either.

[Joe]

Also, look at Mark 14:35-36. Jesus prayed that if it were possible God wouldn't have him die. However, he said that he wanted to see God's will, not His own. The will of the father, not the will of Jesus. Seperate wills. Jesus said he wanted to give up his free will in order to let the will of God take place, meaning he had his own (free) will in the first place.

[Sidoh]

Let me put that question (why did God make it so Jesus had to die) a bit closer to you. You have a son who's.. say.. 3. Defenseless. Zorm brings his robot over to your house. Are you going to aim it at your son and hit the "kill" button? I doubt God would either.

A son to God is much different than a son to man.  I don't think that you can argue that...

Also, look at Mark 14:35-36. Jesus prayed that if it were possible God wouldn't have him die. However, he said that he wanted to see God's will, not His own. The will of the father, not the will of Jesus. Seperate wills. Jesus said he wanted to give up his free will in order to let the will of God take place, meaning he had his own (free) will in the first place.

God is not man.  Jesus is not man.  You're comparing deities to man.  It doesn't make any sense -- especially in this debate.