Free will

IFX

Christians tell us God gave us free will.
But the Christian God may punish you if you don't live up to expectation, you may be sent to Hell.
How can someone or something be free if you can be punished?

Excelsior

Hell is the defining proof of free will. You choose to go there.

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

Hell is the defining proof of free will. You choose to go there.

Incorrect. Hell [if it exists] is the defining proof of no free will.
You are punished for a particular choice. How can something be possibly "free" if it involves punishment?

Scofflaw

Reposted:

Actually, I would define "free" as willing to accept the consequences of your actions. That can, of course, include punishment.

I will propose, for the umpteenth time, and in no great hope of being understood, that one can reconcile free will with omniscience by positing God as able to view all time simultaneously, while we can only move through it sequentially. Our choices are freely made, but from God's point of view they have already been made.

That doesn't change the fact that if God is omniscient, he would be condemning you to eternal damnation for something he knew you would be doing when he created the world. Indeed, from God's perspective, the creation of the world, and your condemnation, were simultaneous.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Our choices are freely made, but from God's point of view they have already been made.

That doesn't really work when you factor in the assertion that God made everything, because God also made the future. Everything is made, including all time, in the instance of creation. God creates everything and then views everything in one single instant. God therefore makes our future when he makes everything.

As I mentioned on the atheist forum, you then fall into another one of the God paradoxes that I love so much

God by definition of creating something decides its properties, he asserts influence over how it is defined.

Can God create something that he has no influence over how it is created?

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

That doesn't really work when you factor in the assertion that God made everything, because God also made the future. Everything is made, including all time, in the instance of creation. God creates everything and then views everything in one single instant. God therefore makes our future when he makes everything.

Hmm. No. That doesn't present a paradox. Our choices remain genuinely freely made by us without constraint. Although from an atemporal point of view they have already been made, they were nevertheless freely made. It doesn't matter whether God made all of time at the same "moment", or creates it instant by instant.

As I say, I don't really expect people to understand this one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Excelsior

IFX wrote:

Incorrect. Hell [if it exists] is the defining proof of no free will.
You are punished for a particular choice. How can something be possibly "free" if it involves punishment?

Incorrect? Just like that?

Actions have consequences. If you spend this life ignoring God, he says "Thy will be done" and lets you keep walking that direction for eternity. Your choices have consequences. That is the very essence of what freedom means.

Scofflaw, you are right on the button. How does orthodoxy suit?

God sustained/sustains/will sustain (impossible for us to discuss his atemporality except with language bound by temporal understanding) a future that is created out of all the possible futures by our actual choices. I don't see how that contradicts Scofflaw's explanation.

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

Incorrect? Just like that?

Yes it would be "free will" if there was no heaven / hell judgement, punishment concept. Suppose the Bible said, if you want to be an atheist, no problem, it makes no difference to what God will do to you, then it would be free will.
Consulting my Oxford Dictionary:
"free will":
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate: the ability to act at one's own discretion.

How can one have the ability to act at one own discretion if they are told they can end up hell?
Furthermore, when they are in hell, surely they have lost their free will - i.e. the ability to act at their own discretion.
So if free will has been given to humans and it can end depending on what we do with our initial free will, surely it is not free will as it contains major terms and conditions.

Excelsior

IFX wrote:

The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate: the ability to act at one's own discretion.

If your actions had no impact on Being, then one must conclude the action is irrelevant to the point of non-existence. Consequence is the field on which choice plays. To answer your charges directly- you are neither bound to accept Christ nor destined independent of your choices to reject Christ. Your response to Christ is your own. It is not necessary. Fate doesn't come in to it.

Heaven or hell are thus not violators of the soverignity of the human decision.

IFX wrote:

How can one have the ability to act at one own discretion if they are told they can end up hell?

My wife just told me that if I dare play Duke Special's new album in the car again this week she'll put arsenic in my cornflakes. I can still freely choose to listen to his Belfastian warble, knowing that the consequences are negative.

IFX wrote:

Furthermore, when they are in hell, surely they have lost their free will - i.e. the ability to act at their own discretion.

Surely? Well there you will have to admit, if no where else, IFX, that your knowledge has met a boundary. What do you know of hell? How can you be sure of that? The Great Divorce is a lovely book by CS Lewis by the way. Your local library will have it.

IFX wrote:

So if free will has been given to humans and it can end depending on what we do with our initial free will, surely it is not free will as it contains major terms and conditions.

Free will is never unbounded. It always comes with terms and conditions. I am free to move around this space-time universe, but typically I can only do so at about 4 miles per hour without risking my health. I can choose to travel faster by jumping out of my office window but that choice will have consequences because our freedom has boundaries.

Furthermore, your claims that hell or heaven is the end of choice are theologically suspect from a Christian perspective and would require some serious argument to support them, preferably, seeing as you are debating with a Presbyterian, some Scriptural support.

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

If your actions had no impact on Being, then one must conclude the action is irrelevant to the point of non-existence. Consequence is the field on which choice plays. To answer your charges directly- you are neither bound to accept Christ nor destined independent of your choices to reject Christ. Your response to Christ is your own. It is not necessary. Fate doesn't come in to it.

Incorrect, it is necessary to avoid hell.

Excelsior wrote:

Heaven or hell are thus not violators of the soverignity of the human decision.

Correct, we can make a decision, but to say 'God gave us free will', is incorrect.

Excelsior wrote:

My wife just told me that if I dare play Duke Special's new album in the car again this week she'll put arsenic in my cornflakes. I can still freely choose to listen to his Belfastian warble, knowing that the consequences are negative.

Analogy is not valid.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic6.html

Excelsior wrote:

Surely? Well there you will have to admit, if no where else, IFX, that your knowledge has met a boundary. What do you know of hell? How can you be sure of that?

My argument here is based on the case where hell does exist, I believe it does not, but I may be wrong. I am arguing here the lack of logic of free will if you end up in hell. If you end up in hell, you have anything but free will. Surely this presents a major inconsistency. In fact, if our free will is replaced with eternal damnation based on a binary decision for which we were supposed to have a free choice of, surely we don't really have free will in the first place.

Excelsior wrote:

The Great Divorce is a lovely book by CS Lewis by the way. Your local library will have it.

I have a problem with CS Lewis. What does he know about Science, logic or philosophy. Outside Christianity he is famous for kids book. As far as I know he did not even study theology. He's is good with words and rhetoric, I favour logic.
Colin McGinn is a great philosopher. I would recommend him, if you are interested in challenging your faith, much better than Richard Dawkins.
Or if you want a classic, 'Why I am not Christian?' by Bertran Russell.

Excelsior wrote:

Free will is never unbounded. It always comes with terms and conditions.
I am free to move around this space-time universe, but typically I can only do so at about 4 miles per hour without risking my health. I can choose to travel faster by jumping out of my office window but that choice will have consequences because our freedom has boundaries.

The issues here is the
1. The choice
2. The terms and conditions.

Your analogy is not valid
Analogy is not valid.
http://www.soyouwanna.com/site/syws/logic/logic6.html

If you compare the type of choice and the terms and conditions, they are entirely different in nature, reason, common sense, evidence, culture, upbringing, fear, need - there is no way they are analagous.

Excelsior wrote:

Furthermore, your claims that hell or heaven is the end of choice are theologically suspect from a Christian perspective and would require some serious argument to support them, preferably, seeing as you are debating with a Presbyterian, some Scriptural support.

Why does the fact your are a Presbyterian have anything to do with it?
What difference is there between Christian and Presbyterian in the context of this debate?

Excelsior

Analogy is not valid? How can my illustration be invalid? How can important literary critics be disregarded because you operate "with logic"? How can one person misunderstand me so badly?

I am off to play Duke Special to my wife so I can enjoy the sweet release of that tasteless arsenic...

Scofflaw

Excelsior wrote:

Incorrect? Just like that?

Actions have consequences. If you spend this life ignoring God, he says "Thy will be done" and lets you keep walking that direction for eternity. Your choices have consequences. That is the very essence of what freedom means.

Scofflaw, you are right on the button. How does orthodoxy suit?

God sustained/sustains/will sustain (impossible for us to discuss his atemporality except with language bound by temporal understanding) a future that is created out of all the possible futures by our actual choices. I don't see how that contradicts Scofflaw's explanation.

Oddly enough, you were one of the few people who I did expect to understand that. I'm afraid I'm a rather Jesuitical atheist/alatrist!

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

IFX wrote:

Consulting my Oxford Dictionary:
"free will":
The power of acting without the constraint of necessity or fate: the ability to act at one's own discretion.

Fate indicates predestination. Necessity indicates an inability to do anything else. Constraint is not the same as punishment. Discretion is the power of knowing choice - the ability to discriminate between choices according to the consequences. None of these are impacted by the threat of punishment.

You can by free will choose to commit a crime, knowing that if you are caught, you may be punished. Does that mean that free will cannot operate when someone "decides" to commit a criminal act? That would give an interesting theory of crime and punishment - the criminal cannot be responsible for any action that society chooses to punish.

IFX wrote:

How can one have the ability to act at one own discretion if they are told they can end up hell?

I'm sure Excelsior will back me up on this - no action is guaranteed to send you to Hell, because all that is required to enter Heaven is God's Grace, which is entirely at His discretion.

IFX wrote:

Furthermore, when they are in hell, surely they have lost their free will - i.e. the ability to act at their own discretion.
So if free will has been given to humans and it can end depending on what we do with our initial free will, surely it is not free will as it contains major terms and conditions.

All choices have consequences - every single one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Hmm. No. That doesn't present a paradox. Our choices remain genuinely freely made by us without constraint. Although from an atemporal point of view they have already been made, they were nevertheless freely made. It doesn't matter whether God made all of time at the same "moment", or creates it instant by instant.

As I say, I don't really expect people to understand this one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Maybe our definition of "freely made" is different. If God makes all matter, and all time, in one instant, then nothing happens outside of what he has already created.

I think of it like a computer program. A program is technically free to do what it likes, but it can't because what it does is constrained by the generation of the code. From the instant the program runs it is constrained, even if it runs a million years, it can only do what has already been decided that it will do the moment it started running

Excelsior

Just speaking as a theology student and no expert, but as someone with a fairly good grip of what has represented Christian orthodoxy over the centuries, Scofflaw is totally right in saying that for the Christian, no one action can result in damnation.

Its all about relationship, see?

Wick, what would be the implications for your objection if we postulated (I know you don't agree with me but jump into my worldview for the laugh) that the capability for choice comes from some non-materialistic thing we call a soul which bears an image of God.

This "soul" would introduce, through its ability to create (with a little "c" compared to God's grand Creation), the potential of Free Will.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

Maybe our definition of "freely made" is different. If God makes all matter, and all time, in one instant, then nothing happens outside of what he has already created.

I think of it like a computer program. A program is technically free to do what it likes, but it can't because what it does is constrained by the generation of the code. From the instant the program runs it is constrained, even if it runs a million years, it can only do what has already been decided that it will do the moment it started running

Think of it like a program containing a (genuine) random-number generator, which plots every single one of its generated numbers out. By the time the program has printed its result to screen, the choice has been made. Does that constrain the choice?

Now assume you're able to look at the whole run. Does that constrain the numbers the program generates as it runs?

Looking at the results after the program has run does not constrain the numbers generated. Similarly, looking at the program from a position outside time does not constrain the numbers. Those numbers are entirely unconstrained - they are "free". At no point is it "decided" what the numbers will be - but looked at after the fact, the numbers are what they are.

Oddly, this is a bit like the irrelevance of odds after the fact!

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Wicknight wrote:

Maybe our definition of "freely made" is different. If God makes all matter, and all time, in one instant, then nothing happens outside of what he has already created.

I think of it like a computer program. A program is technically free to do what it likes, but it can't because what it does is constrained by the generation of the code. From the instant the program runs it is constrained, even if it runs a million years, it can only do what has already been decided that it will do the moment it started running

That is fine, but we have been coded to make our own decisions based on information. We have also been coded to understand benefits and consequences of actions.

We get to decide if we think the consequence is worth the brenefit. If it is then we carry forward, if it is not we do not carry out the action.

God is our Father, He knows what we will choose, because He knows how we are wired. I kno wwhat my kids will choose if presented with certain choices, because I, being their father, know them well.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

God is our Father, He knows what we will choose, because He knows how we are wired. I kno wwhat my kids will choose if presented with certain choices, because I, being their father, know them well.

If that is the case, none of us are free to change who we are. I don't think that resolves the paradox.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

If that is the case, none of us are free to change who we are. I don't think that resolves the paradox.

cordially,
Scofflaw

We are free to change. That can be done through Christ. He wants to help you to change so that you will make the choices that ultimately lead to Heaven.

My kids can make the choices they want to, but I will help when it apeears it will be a bad one. My job as a Dad.

IFX

Excelsior wrote:

Analogy is not valid? How can my illustration be invalid? How can important literary critics be disregarded because you operate "with logic"? How can one person misunderstand me so badly?

I am off to play Duke Special to my wife so I can enjoy the sweet release of that tasteless arsenic...

I explained why the analogy was invalid, they generally are, as the link explains.
I disregard many literary critics as they do not obey the rules of logic. Not just C S Lewis. Do you disregard Colin McGinn? OR Bertran Russell? Why?
How are my misunderstanding you? I disagree with you and I am trying to stick to logic to explain why.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

We are free to change. That can be done through Christ. He wants to help you to change so that you will make the choices that ultimately lead to Heaven.

My kids can make the choices they want to, but I will help when it apeears it will be a bad one. My job as a Dad.

Brian, if you're free to change who you are, then the analogy that God knows what choices you will make only by virtue of knowing who you are doesn't hold up.

Children are free to become people their parents don't know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Brian, if you're free to change who you are, then the analogy that God knows what choices you will make only by virtue of knowing who you are doesn't hold up.

Children are free to become people their parents don't know.

cordially,
Scofflaw

But He also knows whether or not you will make that change.

But, from our perspective, we have that choice. Paul went from zealously killing Christians to zealously promoting Christ. His personalitry didn't change, just His focus.

If I could backtrack here:) our personalities and tendencies will remain constant, but our focus will change, through Christ.

I was an otter personality when I wasn't a Christian, I'm still an otter, but I use that personality trait to work for Christ.

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

But He also knows whether or not you will make that change.

But, from our perspective, we have that choice. Paul went from zealously killing Christians to zealously promoting Christ. His personalitry didn't change, just His focus.

If I could backtrack here:) our personalities and tendencies will remain constant, but our focus will change, through Christ.

Er, no. I do mean genuine change, not merely a switch in focus.

BrianCalgary wrote:

I was an otter personality when I wasn't a Christian, I'm still an otter, but I use that personality trait to work for Christ.

An otter? You're sure?

slightly mystified,
Scofflaw

IFX

Scofflaw wrote:

Fate indicates predestination. Necessity indicates an inability to do anything else. Constraint is not the same as punishment. Discretion is the power of knowing choice - the ability to discriminate between choices according to the consequences. None of these are impacted by the threat of punishment.

Excuse the analogy, but since everybody else is doing it
Do you think Saddam Hussein gave people genuine free will in Iraq elections then? I don't, but it would be consistent with the free will that may involve punishment if you pick a certain decision. It is consistent with the free will which involves scaring people about a particular decision.
Do you think the Iraq people had genuine free will at those elections?
Again, forgive the analogy but that is the way Hell / Christian free will concept appears to me. There's a major caveat to the so called free will in both cases.

If free will could be quantified, I would argue that the free will presented by Saddam or God is miniscul, it takes a brave person to make a particular decision. Genuine free will should never necessitate bravery to fully realise that free will.

Scofflaw

IFX wrote:

Excuse the analogy, but since everybody else is doing it
Do you think Saddam Hussein gave people genuine free will in Iraq elections then? I don't, but it would be consistent with the free will that may involve punishment if you pick a certain decision. It is consistent with the free will which involves scaring people about a particular decision.
Do you think the Iraq people had genuine free will at those elections?

Yes, they could freely choose to vote the "wrong way". They are not prevented from making that choice.

If, on the other hand, there is no way whatsoever that you cannot vote for Saddam, then you have no free will in the matter.

If you hold a gun to my head, and say you will shoot me if I don't give you all my money, I am making a free will decision between my money and my life. The reason it's free will is because you cannot prevent me from saying "go ahead, blow my head off". You are only influencing my decision, not constraining it.

IFX wrote:

Again, forgive the analogy but that is the way Hell / Christian free will concept appears to me. There's a major caveat to the so called free will in both cases.

It's a consequence, but the decision is still your call.

IFX wrote:

If free will could be quantified, I would argue that the free will presented by Saddam or God is miniscul, it takes a brave person to make a particular decision.

Hmm. That's a different argument from the argument as to whether there is such a thing as free will. The point at which the influences brought to bear on a decision makes the existence of free will effectively meaningless vary from person to person, but do not mean that free will doesn't exist.

IFX wrote:

Genuine free will should never necessitate bravery to fully realise that free will.

Why ever not?

cordially,
Scofflaw

BrianCalgary

Scofflaw wrote:

Er, no. I do mean genuine change, not merely a switch in focus.

that is why I backtracked, after thinking about the topic for a bit.

Scofflaw wrote:

An otter? You're sure?

slightly mystified,
Scofflaw

Any personality test I have ever done has 4 basic categories. One of the tests has the personalities labelled as animals.

The beaver - won't do anything until all the i's are dotted and the t's are crossed. Wouldn't play soccer without, lines, nets, referees, etc.

The lion - leads and won't stop going until the task is complete. Plays the game until it is over.

The golden retriever - will do the task but gets concerned that every one is feeling alright. Wouldn't want anyone to lose the soccer game because some of the players would be sad.

The otter - is concerned that everyone is having fun. Who needs lines? We have something to kick, some jackets as goal posts, lets just keep playing until it isn't any fun.

To put it into perspective. On our recent trip to Guatemala we had a beaver, he drove me a bit nuts because he was so confined to detail. He was also a lion, he wouldn't stop for a break because the job wasn't complete yet.

We also had a golden retriever, she was great because she made sure we all had water and food.

I would quit building houses for a time to play with the kids of the family who we were building the house for.

I was interested in the relationship building and used my personality type to accomplish that.

The beaver used his to make sure the job got done right and I appreciated that about him.

Hope that clears up the : slightly mystified,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

BrianCalgary wrote:

Hope that clears up the : slightly mystified,
Scofflaw

Thanks! I was worried it was some Canadian thing...

cordially,
Scofflaw

IFX

Scofflaw, it would appear you are quite flexible in your definition of free will and I am not.
I would argue if using a broad definition, then the term "free will" becomes meaningless.

If one does not differentiate between:
free will + major caveat
and
free will + no major caveat
and can simply treat all free will as free will ignoring the caveat,
then the expression free will becomes meaningless.

Back to OP, my view is that the Christain free will contains a major caveat, rendering the term meaningless. A better term would be God gives you a choice. "free will" - does not usually involve a major caveat.

BrianCalgary

IFX wrote:

Back to OP, my view is that the Christain free will contains a major caveat, rendering the term meaningless. A better term would be God gives you a choice. "free will" - does not usually involve a major caveat.

Aren't choice and free will synonomous?

Scofflaw

IFX wrote:

Scofflaw, it would appear you are quite flexible in your definition of free will and I am not.
I would argue if using a broad definition, then the term "free will" becomes meaningless.

If one does not differentiate between:
free will + major caveat
and
free will + no major caveat
and can simply treat all free will as free will ignoring the caveat,
then the expression free will becomes meaningless.

Back to OP, my view is that the Christain free will contains a major caveat, rendering the term meaningless. A better term would be God gives you a choice. "free will" - does not usually involve a major caveat.

Well, free will is a well-debated and well-defined concept, indicating the ability to make unconstrained choices. Consequences, negative or positive, simply don't constrain the choice in a sense that removes free will - if there is choice, there is free will.

I'm perfectly happy to discuss what you wish to discuss, but it isn't really a debate about the existence of free will, but rather about the coercion of free-willed agents.

By arguing that Christianity uses coercion, and that the coercion is meaningful (ie changes people's decisions), you are already accepting that free will exists, since the argument makes no sense if there is no free will.

You see, if there is no free will, then coercion is unnecessary. Threats of punishment are entirely meaningless if you can't change the decision you're making as a result.


cordially,
Scofflaw

IFX

Scofflaw wrote:

By arguing that Christianity uses coercion, and that the coercion is meaningful (ie changes people's decisions), you are already accepting that free will exists, since the argument makes no sense if there is no free will.

You see, if there is no free will, then coercion is unnecessary. Threats of punishment are entirely meaningless if you can't change the decision you're making as a result.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There are four states:
1. No Free will + No Coercion - uninteresting
2. Free will + No Coercion.
3. No Free will + Coercion - coercion is pointless, uninteresting
4. Free will + Coecion.

Furthermore, coercion can vary from someone offering you a fiver to someone going to kill you.

Now here's my subjective take:
Christianity is number 4, not number 2. And the cooercion is so great in magnitude it renders the "free will" pointless.
Free will is rhetoric that is bantered about as if it is something great, I don't see it as great, in the same way as I did not see elections for Saddam Hussein great if he scares the electorate to vote for him. The election or expression of free will becomes meaningless.

Dades

Just to turn this on it's head for a moment...

IFX - would you agree that atheists have free will and Christians don't?

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

At no point is it "decided" what the numbers will be - but looked at after the fact, the numbers are what they are.

No, but that is the point. I was actually going to use a random number generator as an example, but I wasn't sure people would follow the anology.

In computer programming from a random number generator to actually be random you need an external source of seeding. Often this will be something like the processor temp, or the current time. Otherwise a computer has no actually way of generating a random number and just uses a predefined list. It can only do what it has already been decided that it will do at the moment of creation, without external influence.

The point with God is that God is the only influence on the universe and all of time. In the instant of creation He mades everything that is and that will be. He is the computer programmer and we are the program. For randomness external to this inital creation to be possible you will need something external to this inital creation to allow for this randomness, and there is nothing external to God or His creation of space time by definition.

Instead of thinking of it as God makes everything at the start and then lets it run its course, like a wind up toy, it is better to think of space/time as single 3 dimintional object like a ball of playdo, because God created and views the universe as a single 4D object, all at once. If you create a 3D object that object in the moment of creation cannot be anything other than what you create unless something external effects that. That is true of a ball of playdo or the Mars rover. If you were the only influence in the universe then the ball of playdo you make can only ever be the ball of playdo that you make.

Again its similar to the computer program. That computer program cannot act in a "free will" manner without influence external to the inital program. How the program will act a month from now is defined the moment it starts running, it cannot not do what is defined in the inital creation something external to its inital paramaters effecting it.

Instead of thinking of space time as the computer program running, think of space time as the code itself. As you read through the code the bit you haven't got to yet cannot change without something making that change, since the entire program has already been created. To God we are not like a computer program running away on a computer, we are like the source code itself, because time to God is irrelivent.

For us to have "free will" that would have to be a produce of something external to God. That isn't possible since God has created everything that is and will be in one instant. Time is a ball of playdo, time cannot be something it isn't already.

So again it creates the paradox, since God creates space time as one single 4D object, can God create something that is different to how He creates it, and therefore produce a different space/time object than the one He just created?

IFX

The Atheist wrote:

Just to turn this on it's head for a moment...

IFX - would you agree that atheists have free will and Christians don't?

I am not sure.
We must remember there are two forms of coercion:
Hell and Heaven, essentially it's a stick and carrot.
Christians that are only acting under coercion, are acting under duress, not free will. However, I know many Christians reject the Hell and consider it utterly false.
I am not sure if they have complete free will, as they are still experiencing positive coercion.
Christians that reject both heaven and hell, reject coercion so thus experience greater free will. However I am not sure such people exist.
Put simply, I think coercion and free will are inversly proportional.
I don't see much free will in Christianity, but I do see coercion. I consider free will Christian rhetoric. How come Christianity harps on and on about free will and rarely about coercion?

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

That is fine, but we have been coded to make our own decisions based on information. We have also been coded to understand benefits and consequences of actions.

But the point is that if God exists, and is the creator of everything, we can't have been. It is an illusion, because we are in the box but can't tell we are.

Its like the computer program thinking it is generating random numbers when in fact it is just reading from a list of predefined random numbers.

God made the predefined numbers when he made everything, we just don't notice because we think the list is random.

BrianCalgary wrote:

God is our Father, He knows what we will choose, because He knows how we are wired. I kno wwhat my kids will choose if presented with certain choices, because I, being their father, know them well.

But you are thinking about it as a being that cannot view time as single entity.

As I said to Scofflaw if you want to imagine how God would view the unvierse you need to pretend the unvierse and time is a single 3D object, because God would view the universe and time as a single 4D object.

Imagine the stapler I have in front of me on my desk. One tip is the begining of creation, the other end is the end of the unvierse. Each cross section of the stapler is an instance in time and space. Imagine my stapler at one instant, since one instant how God exists, there is no passage of time for God, everything just is.

If I run my finger along the stapler I can imagine I'm moving my finger through time. As I'm doing this the stapler doesn't change. The tip is the same as it was when I end, the end is the same as it was when I start. I view the stapler is one static object, and without external force it is exactly as it is. To God the universe, all of space time, would be like my stabler. One static object. Time exists in the stapler itself, and can be thought of as simply moving from tip to the end.

We on the other hand view the stabler as if we can only see a single cross section at a time, which is one particular instant of time. We don't know what the tip of the stapler will be like because we cannot see it, so every cross section that we move into as time moves forward is different. We also can't see the previous cross sections that have gone before, we can only remember them. We exist in a cross section at a time.

We believe we have the free will to change the future, to change what the shape of what the stapler will be like as we move through it. But we can't,it is an illusion. God has already made the space time, the stapler. When God views the stapler it is static. The shape of the stapler has already been decided when God made it The tip of the stapler is the same as it is now as it was when we started.

For use to have free will the stapler would have to be able to change as we move through it. But that doesn't make sense, any more than my actually stapler at any one instant (remember there is no passage of time for God) not being what my stapler is at that instant.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

No, but that is the point. I was actually going to use a random number generator as an example, but I wasn't sure people would follow the anology.

In computer programming from a random number generator to actually be random you need an external source of seeding. Often this will be something like the processor temp, or the current time. Otherwise a computer has no actually way of generating a random number and just uses a predefined list. It can only do what it has already been decided that it will do at the moment of creation, without external influence.

Hmm. I was deliberately picking a notional pure random number generator - hence the bracketed "genuine". I would particularly exclude a random number generator that uses a predefined list of numbers, since that has exactly the opposite effect on the analogy!

Wicknight wrote:

Its like the computer program thinking it is generating random numbers when in fact it is just reading from a list of predefined random numbers.

God made the predefined numbers when he made everything, we just don't notice because we think the list is random.

In particular, this is not the analogy! God does not "make the numbers", they are fully random. He is just able to observe them from his point of view outside time.

To paraphrase your stapler analogy - assume the stapler is a piece of string. The string's conformation on your desk is randomly generated, but, just as with the stapler, you are able to observe it in its entirety despite that. Your observation does not change the randomness of the conformation, it only observes it. That means that you did not dictate it - and neither does God dictate or impose the choices made by the free-willed agents he has created - he merely observes them.

Wicknight wrote:

The point with God is that God is the only influence on the universe and all of time. In the instant of creation He mades everything that is and that will be. He is the computer programmer and we are the program. For randomness external to this inital creation to be possible you will need something external to this inital creation to allow for this randomness, and there is nothing external to God or His creation of space time by definition.

Instead of thinking of it as God makes everything at the start and then lets it run its course, like a wind up toy, it is better to think of space/time as single 3 dimintional object like a ball of playdo, because God created and views the universe as a single 4D object, all at once. If you create a 3D object that object in the moment of creation cannot be anything other than what you create unless something external effects that. That is true of a ball of playdo or the Mars rover. If you were the only influence in the universe then the ball of playdo you make can only ever be the ball of playdo that you make.

Again its similar to the computer program. That computer program cannot act in a "free will" manner without influence external to the inital program. How the program will act a month from now is defined the moment it starts running, it cannot not do what is defined in the inital creation something external to its inital paramaters effecting it.

Instead of thinking of space time as the computer program running, think of space time as the code itself. As you read through the code the bit you haven't got to yet cannot change without something making that change, since the entire program has already been created. To God we are not like a computer program running away on a computer, we are like the source code itself, because time to God is irrelivent.

For us to have "free will" that would have to be a produce of something external to God. That isn't possible since God has created everything that is and will be in one instant. Time is a ball of playdo, time cannot be something it isn't already.

So again it creates the paradox, since God creates space time as one single 4D object, can God create something that is different to how He creates it, and therefore produce a different space/time object than the one He just created?

I take your point, I think. Overall, then, you would say that we have no meaningful free will because looked at in totality, we cannot choose anything but what we were created having chosen?

I accept this to the extent that from God's point of view we are guaranteed to act as he sees that we have. However, as long as we cannot observe the Universe from God's point of view, this is effectively irrelevant to us, except when God then acts as final judge. His observation does not constrain, merely record.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

To paraphrase your stapler analogy - assume the stapler is a piece of string. The string's conformation on your desk is randomly generated, but, just as with the stapler, you are able to observe it in its entirety despite that. Your observation does not change the randomness of the conformation, it only observes it. That means that you did not dictate it - and neither does God dictate or impose the choices made by the free-willed agents he has created - he merely observes them.

That would hold if something else created the alignment of the piece of string, and I (playing God ) am just observing it. This is how I originally thought that God and free will are not in conflict. Just because God can view the piece of string completely doesn't mean he effects how it falls on the table. The string is free to fall as it falls.

The problem, as pointed out by Robin (he has shown me the light! ) comes when you factor in that fact that God must have decided how it feel on the table, because what else would have?

He created the string and the way the string falls (the universe and space time). What else could have? According to Christian dogma there is nothing beyond God, so there is no external factor to influence the randoness of the string, or the computer program, or the stapler. Everything starts and ends with God. God cannot observe anything that is influence by some factor external to his creation. So the analogy that a piece of string falls randomly on a table and God is just observing it doesn't work, because God would have to make the string fall on the table for the string to fall in the first place (the string being the universe)

To God, by definition, randonness external to His will, doesn't actually exist. This is where pardoxes come into play. For example, can God roll a pair of dice but not know the outcome of the roll, or have created the dice and the roll itself in the first place? Can God create something and not influence how it is created, ie some external factor to God influences it?

Scofflaw wrote:

I accept this to the extent that from God's point of view we are guaranteed to act as he sees that we have. However, as long as we cannot observe the Universe from God's point of view, this is effectively irrelevant to us, except when God then acts as final judge. His observation does not constrain, merely record.

No but His creation constrains. The universe is created by God as it is, because there is nothing external to God that can effect the universe. God does not just observe the universe as if it was created or influenced by an external factor (the randomness of the string falling on the table), because there is, by definition, nothing external to God to effect the randomness of the string (ie the universe).

The decisions we make as we go through life are irrevlient because God has already created our universe and our future. There are no factors external to God, so nothing but God or his creations, can influence our space time line. We cannot do something that will alter the future as defined by God at the moment of creation.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

That would hold if something else created the alignment of the piece of string, and I (playing God ) am just observing it. This is how I originally thought that God and free will are not in conflict. Just because God can view the piece of string completely doesn't mean he effects how it falls on the table. The string is free to fall as it falls.

The problem, as pointed out by Robin (he has shown me the light! ) comes when you factor in that fact that God must have decided how it feel on the table, because what else would have?

If I write a program that includes a random-number generator, your logic would imply that I thereby dictated the random numbers. Unless I use a list that I generated in advance, this is not the case, even for a standard pseudo-random number generator.

For exactly the same reasons, God is not required to constrain his creation in the sense you suggest.

Wicknight wrote:

He created the string and the way the string falls (the universe and space time). What else could have? According to Christian dogma there is nothing beyond God, so there is no external factor to influence the randoness of the string, or the computer program, or the stapler. Everything starts and ends with God. God cannot observe anything that is influence by some factor external to his creation. So the analogy that a piece of string falls randomly on a table and God is just observing it doesn't work, because God would have to make the string fall on the table for the string to fall in the first place (the string being the universe)

To God, by definition, randonness external to His will, doesn't actually exist. This is where pardoxes come into play. For example, can God roll a pair of dice but not know the outcome of the roll, or have created the dice and the roll itself in the first place? Can God create something and not influence how it is created, ie some external factor to God influences it?

Not at all. Obviously God can create a perfect random-number generator. He is free to interfere with its workings (so he is not paradoxically creating something he cannot control), but does not have to.

Wicknight wrote:

No but His creation constrains. The universe is created by God as it is, because there is nothing external to God that can affect the universe. God does not just observe the universe as if it was created or influenced by an external factor (the randomness of the string falling on the table), because there is, by definition, nothing external to God to effect the randomness of the string (ie the universe).

Unnecessary, as long as God can create randomness.

Wicknight wrote:

The decisions we make as we go through life are irrevlient because God has already created our universe and our future. There are no factors external to God, so nothing but God or his creations, can influence our space time line. We cannot do something that will alter the future as defined by God at the moment of creation.

Again, the decisions we take are not irrelevant because God knows their outcome, any more than the decisions we took yesterday were irrelevant then because we know their outcome now.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

If I write a program that includes a random-number generator, your logic would imply that I thereby dictated the random numbers.

That is actually what you have to do to write a random number generator, without using an external source for a seed. It is not possible for a computer to just generate a random number.

And even when you do use an external source to act as the seed, such as the time or a set of random key presses, this number is still not truely random, if the same time was used again the same numbers would pop out.

To generate something randonly you have to have a source external to the created system. Since nothing can be external to God, that isn't possible.

Scofflaw wrote:

Not at all. Obviously God can create a perfect random-number generator. He is free to interfere with its workings (so he is not paradoxically creating something he cannot control), but does not have to.

But how does the random number form externally to God's will?

Scofflaw wrote:

Unnecessary, as long as God can create randomness.

That is the paradox. He can't create randomness external to himself and be God because nothing is external to God. But then there is supposed to be nothing He can't do.

Scofflaw wrote:

Again, the decisions we take are not irrelevant because God knows their outcome, any more than the decisions we took yesterday were irrelevant then because we know their outcome now.

Your decision yesterday is not free to be something different to what it already was. It can only be one thing, the thing that is it. From the point of view of God free will is just an illusion of not knowing what we will do. And what we will do is decided in the instance of creation. Once we do know what we have done we are in the same position as God, able to view what has happened. But what has happened cannot change, any more that what we will do can change.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

That is actually what you have to do to write a random number generator, without using an external source for a seed. It is not possible for a computer to just generate a random number.

And even when you do use an external source to act as the seed, such as the time or a set of random key presses, this number is still not truely random, if the same time was used again the same numbers would pop out.

I know that, but the limitations of our computers are not actually relevant.

Wicknight wrote:

To generate something randonly you have to have a source external to the created system. Since nothing can be external to God, that isn't possible.

But how does the random number form externally to God's will?

That is the paradox. He can't create randomness external to himself and be God because nothing is external to God. But then there is supposed to be nothing He can't do.

Good point. However, if it is impossible for God not to enforce his will, then we are all puppets anyway. If it is possible for God not to enforce his will, then it is possible for him to create a random number generator that exists without his will being enforced on it.

I would argue the latter, because I see no reason why God should have to enforce his will. So the answer is that the random number generator does not exist outside God, but he does not enforce his will on it, leaving it free to generate perfectly random numbers.

Again, the inability of modern computers to generate perfectly random numbers is not relevant.

Wicknight wrote:

Your decision yesterday is not free to be something different to what it already was. It can only be one thing, the thing that is it. From the point of view of God free will is just an illusion of not knowing what we will do. And what we will do is decided in the instance of creation. Once we do know what we have done we are in the same position as God, able to view what has happened. But what has happened cannot change, any more that what we will do can change.

Yes, but that was irrelevant to us yesterday, and remains irrelevant to us today...

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

So the answer is that the random number generator does not exist outside God, but he does not enforce his will on it, leaving it free to generate perfectly random numbers.

But where does the number come from?

How can the perfectly random number generator produce a random number external to God? Where does that number come from? If the generator can produce a number completely independently of God then it is outside the sphere of Gods realm. Which isn't possible.

I think the problem here is that you are viewing God as something standing in a room with the universe beside him, watching the universe unfold. When he wants to he can stick his finger in, do something, and then stick it out again. God and the universe are two seperate entities existing side by side. Its in here God could create his number generator and just put it aside and leave it alone, as he does with the universe.

The problem (paradox) is that that doesn't really hold with the concept of "god", because in this view there are a lot of things external to god, the room they are in for example.

As a Christian will tell you God has to be at the top. God isn't standing in an independent room watching the universe, he made the room, too. And the room that room is in. And the room that room is in ...etc etc

You can't go out any further than to what God made. So nothing can be independent from God. Your number generator cannot work in a realm independent to God, because everything is under God, with God at the top.

Scofflaw wrote:

Again, the inability of modern computers to generate perfectly random numbers is not relevant.

It was your example

Scofflaw wrote:

Yes, but that was irrelevant to us yesterday, and remains irrelevant to us today...

Not following ... what is irrelevant?

BrianCalgary

Interesting stuff guys. You lost me periodically. One of the drawbacks of having to read everything over my morning coffee as I was fast asleep as you were pounding away.

The stapler provided some insight quite nicely wicknight (there I picked you again:D) and the string was quite good scofflaw. You lost me on the random numbers on the computer.

There are two main points of view: God's and mans. God can see the whole and knows when things are going to play out and how they are going to play out. Man doesn't know, so our our viewpoint we have free choice. As long as that is in my purview I will do as God asks me to, because yoy never know that something may be said on these boards that spurs someone into relationship with Christ. I have no way of knowing when or how, but I have a responsibility to bellieve there is a chance and operate as such.

The stapler analogy doesn't quite work because it implies that God just leaves the stapler as is and lets her go. God however gets involved. As an example, without God's prompting I never would have gone to Guatemala. He prompts me I go. If I never accept Him, I don't get the prompting. Once I accept Him, now the stapler changes and becomes like the string, God is now influencing the lives of Guatemalans in Parramos through the guy from Calgary. He sees the big picture and knows the influence I have, but I don't.

If scofflaw or wicknight were to come to faith in Christ, then God would be influencing the world around you through you.

Zombrex

BrianCalgary wrote:

If I never accept Him, I don't get the prompting.

But the problem with that is that because the future has already been created you never don't get the prompting. A future where you don't get the prompting cannot exist, because God has already created everything.

Thats what I meant by the stapler analogy. As you move through the stapler you are discovering it bit by bit, but the actual stapler doesn't change because it has already been created as a whole object, and God views it as a whole object. The stapler cannot change into a hole punch half way through you moving up it, because where would that leave God and what is He looking at

BrianCalgary wrote:

Once I accept Him, now the stapler changes and becomes like the string

But the point of the analogy is that the stapler can't change, because if the stapler can change then what is God looking at when he views the stapler (the entire universe and all of space time as one single entity). Remember God exists outside of time, the stapler is space and time, and He views the whole thing as one 4D object. There is no "change" in the way God is looking at the universe because there is no time from where He is viewing.

If the property of the stapler might not actually be a stapler due to your actions, then what is God looking at when He views the entire thing, and what did He create in the first place?

It doesn't make sense that what God is viewing can change due to something external to God, even if that thing is your free will. Therefore free will cannot exist.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But where does the number come from?

How can the perfectly random number generator produce a random number external to God? Where does that number come from? If the generator can produce a number completely independently of God then it is outside the sphere of Gods realm. Which isn't possible.

I think the problem here is that you are viewing God as something standing in a room with the universe beside him, watching the universe unfold. When he wants to he can stick his finger in, do something, and then stick it out again. God and the universe are two seperate entities existing side by side. Its in here God could create his number generator and just put it aside and leave it alone, as he does with the universe.

Not at all. I am assuming that god is omnipresent and pervasive. Nevertheless, being pervasive is not the same thing as "powering everything through his will", so it is entirely possible to have something "within" God but independent of his active will - after all, if it is not, then we are all puppets powered by God's will.

Wicknight wrote:

You can't go out any further than to what God made. So nothing can be independent from God. Your number generator cannot work in a realm independent to God, because everything is under God, with God at the top.

The generator is within God, and its existence is dependent on God, but its operation is independent of his will.

Wicknight wrote:

It was your example

Well, no, because my example had a perfect random number generator in it, not a pseudo-random number generator.

Wicknight wrote:

Not following ... what is irrelevant?

Today's knowledge of yesterday's decisions is irrelevant to whether we exercised free will yesterday. That we can know today what we decided yesterday didn't constrain us yesterday, because that was then in our future. That God knows what we will have decided in a year's time does not constrain that decision, because that too is still in our future, as long as we are not God.

One interesting implication is that god himself does not have free will, since he "foreknows" his own actions, or rather, he cannot exercise free will because he has no time in which to do so.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But the problem with that is that because the future has already been created you never don't get the prompting. A future where you don't get the prompting cannot exist, because God has already created everything.

Thats what I meant by the stapler analogy. As you move through the stapler you are discovering it bit by bit, but the actual stapler doesn't change because it has already been created as a whole object, and God views it as a whole object. The stapler cannot change into a hole punch half way through you moving up it, because where would that leave God and what is He looking at


But the point of the analogy is that the stapler can't change, because if the stapler can change then what is God looking at when he views the stapler (the entire universe and all of space time as one single entity). Remember God exists outside of time, the stapler is space and time, and He views the whole thing as one 4D object. There is no "change" in the way God is looking at the universe because there is no time from where He is viewing.

If the property of the stapler might not actually be a stapler due to your actions, then what is God looking at when He views the entire thing, and what did He create in the first place?

It doesn't make sense that what God is viewing can change due to something external to God, even if that thing is your free will. Therefore free will cannot exist.

I think you still miss the point by a very small margin. God may have created the world, and the timeline, in which you make decision X, but he doesn't make decision X for you, or constrain you to make decision X. You make decision X - and freely. He has just already seen you doing it (most of the tenses fail to cover the point, alas).

I think you are viewing this as travelling along a road, so that the lefts and rights are there already, and we haven't taken them yet, but that confuses our viewpoint with God's. From our perspective, within our existence, the left and right do not exist yet. When I say we are timebound, I literally mean that neither the past nor the future actually exist in any real way for us, and that therefore we are simply not constrained by them.

You are assuming an objective reality in which all time exists already, which is incorrect. In our frame of reference, only the present is real. In God's frame of reference, all time is real. These are separate frames of reference, neither of which is universal, and the existence of God's frame neither precludes nor subsumes our frame of reference. Literally, God's reality is not our reality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

I think you still miss the point by a very small margin. God may have created the world, and the timeline, in which you make decision X, but he doesn't make decision X for you, or constrain you to make decision X. You make decision X - and freely. He has just already seen you doing it (most of the tenses fail to cover the point, alas).

But when do you do it?

There has to be a point where you actually do this decision, but if God has created time and is external to it that point does not exist independently of the point of creation. There is no time from Gods point of view, so there is no oppertunity for you do make that decision independtly of the inital point of creation.

Everything is created at the same instance, including the future, and God is aware of everything at that instance. He doesn't look forward or back to see what decision you actually make, He views the entire space time object as a single static object, existing at the moment of creation.

It doesn't work that He creates a time line and the plonks you are the start of it. You are the time line. He creates your timeline when he creates everything else. From Gods point of view you are a single object, existing in 4D space. From his point of view you don't move through his time line, He views all your points at the same time. So where on that 4D object can you make a decision?

Its would be like the stapler deciding that after 2.3cm it is not going to be a stapler anymore. That isn't possible, because the point at 2.4cm is already created and is a stapler also.

Scofflaw wrote:

I think you are viewing this as travelling along a road, so that the lefts and rights are there already, and we haven't taken them yet, but that confuses our viewpoint with God's.

No not at all. I'm viewing space time as a single object, where every point of the object is created at exactly the same time. The tip of my stapler cannot exist independly from the end of my stapler, they are created as one single object.

To understand this you have to remove time completely. From Gods perspective there is no time, there is only the object of space time, existing static at the moment of creation.

Scofflaw wrote:

From our perspective, within our existence, the left and right do not exist yet. When I say we are timebound, I literally mean that neither the past nor the future actually exist in any real way for us, and that therefore we are simply not constrained by them.

But they do exist, we are just not aware of them. To God they exist as one single object.

Scofflaw wrote:

You are assuming an objective reality in which all time exists already, which is incorrect.

Its incorrect for how the universe actually is, which would imply .... (shush, not in front of the theists )

Scofflaw wrote:

These are separate frames of reference, neither of which is universal, and the existence of God's frame neither precludes nor subsumes our frame of reference. Literally, God's reality is not our reality.

But again that doesn't make sense in the frame work of the theist notion of God. God's reality, by definition, is reality. It is not a viewpoint on something external, it is reality. Our view point within this reality on the other hand is simply that a viewpoint. We are not aware of the pass or the future, but God is aware of everything.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

But when do you do it?

There has to be a point where you actually do this decision, but if God has created time and is external to it that point does not exist independently of the point of creation. Everything is created at the same instance

Well, within our time-bound reality, the creation occurred however long ago, and we are making the decision now.

Wicknight wrote:

No not at all. I'm viewing space time as a single object, where every point of the object is created at exactly the same time. The tip of my stapler cannot exist independly from the end of my stapler, they are created as one single object.

To understand this you have to remove time completely. From Gods perspective there is no time, there is only the object of space time, existing static at the moment of creation.

Surely slightly incorrect - time exists for God, but only in the same sense as length. Also, your stapler is actually made up of quintillions of random quantum fluctuations.

Wicknight wrote:

But they do exist, we are just not aware of them. To God they exist as one single object.

To God, yes. To us, no. Again, you are assuming that God's frame of reference is the "real" one, and ours is just a limited viewpoint on that reality, which is not what I'm putting forward. Both are real - our reality is as real as God's, and neither is an "objective" reality, because there is no such thing.

Wicknight wrote:

Its incorrect for how the universe actually is, which would imply .... (shush, not in front of the theists )

It's slightly bizarre, actually, two atheists arguing theology...

Wicknight wrote:

But again that doesn't make sense in the frame work of the theist notion of God. God's reality, by definition, is reality. Our view point within this reality is simply that a viewpoint.

I don't think that's the case. God's reality is God's, ours is ours. His could be viewed as a "higher" reality, and I think you'll find that most theists will agree with that.

cordially,
Scofflaw

GuanYin

You know, this is beginning to read like the Irish skeptics forum - do people actually talk about christianity or is it just the christianity defence forum?

Aside from that, theological question.

What about Judas and free will? Did he have it?

He was pre-destined to betray christ, christ told him as much. He was required to betray christ in order for christ to be crucified and all the rest.

But if he was pre-destined, surely he loses the option of free will? I mean, he's pretty much damned from conception, because his life is about betrayal which ultimately leads to his suicide which in turn gives him front row seats in the lowest level of hell.

Now of course you could argue he didn't need to choose suicide, but lets say he was emotionally overcome with grief (you just sent the messiah to his death) and not in a sane state of mind. Which leads to another question. Those who take their life due to depression and other psychological disorders. Do they have true free will? Do they deserve the damnation that christianity says they do?

starn

Personally I think this whole free will think was doomed from the start;)

Zombrex

Scofflaw wrote:

Again, you are assuming that God's frame of reference is the "real" one, and ours is just a limited viewpoint on that reality, which is not what I'm putting forward.

I would put forward thought that based on my understanding of how theist define "God" there cannot be a frame of reference for reality from Gods point of view that isn't the real one, and the entire real one. Which is why randomness doesn't apply to God, as He would view all possible outcomes at the same time. God sees everything, and everything exists because of God.

I think that is the problem, or defintion of what "God" is is different, so we are going to end up at different points.

And you are right, it is rather bizzare to be arguing this, since I don't think either of us accept God is real.

Scofflaw

Wicknight wrote:

I would put forward thought that based on my understanding of how theist define "God" there cannot be a frame of reference for reality from Gods point of view that isn't the real one, and the entire real one. Which is why randomness doesn't apply to God, as He would view all possible outcomes at the same time. God sees everything, and everything exists because of God.

Being able to view all possible outcomes, and indeed, the actual outcome, is not the same as constraining it.

To put it another way, God knows that He will roll the dice, and the result will be 5, but He still has to roll the dice and generate the 5. He is constrained by foreknowledge, not the future.

Wicknight wrote:

I think that is the problem, or defintion of what "God" is is different, so we are going to end up at different points.

It might be our definition of real that's at issue. In any case, there's no point in asking the theists to define God for us, since they all have different ideas.

Wicknight wrote:

And you are right, it is rather bizzare to be arguing this, since I don't think either of us accept God is real.

I suspect that most religious people would have given up a while back, but we're still trying to iron out the last wrinkles. I suspect this is why we're atheists - we probably should have just gone "woo, transcendent, woo!", and gone to church.

On the other hand, I'd perfectly happily become a research theologian...

cordially,
Scofflaw