The Bible, Creationism, and Prophecy (part 2)

J C

jacksie66 wrote: »

These creationists make my head hurt sometimes...

I used to feel like that, when I was an Evolutionist ... but I have now found that the truth has set me free ...:)

bumper234

J C wrote: »

Good that I have brought a smile to somebody's face.:)

... we all can do with a good laugh sometimes ...
I have a good chuckle every time I hear the mantra of 'millions of years' trotted out ... or various 'just so' stories about 'how' Evolution did this or that ... when its incapable of producing just one specific 100 chain amino acid chain, even using all of the matter and supposed time in the Big Baang Universe!!!:pac:

Na dude you're doing it wrong.

For the real.comedy gold check this fairy tale out;)

The Beginning

1 In the beginning God created the heavens and the earth. 2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep, and the Spirit of God was hovering over the waters.

3 And God said, “Let there be light,” and there was light. 4 God saw that the light was good, and he separated the light from the darkness.5 God called the light “day,” and the darkness he called “night.”And there was evening, and there was morning—the first day.

6 And God said, “Let there be a vault between the waters to separate water from water.” 7 So God made the vault and separated the water under the vault from the water above it. And it was so.8 God called the vault “sky.” And there was evening, and there was morning—the second day.

9 And God said, “Let the water under the sky be gathered to one place,and let dry ground appear.” And it was so. 10 God called the dry ground “land,” and the gathered waters he called “seas.” And God saw that it was good.

11 Then God said, “Let the land produce vegetation: seed-bearing plants and trees on the land that bear fruit with seed in it, according to their various kinds.” And it was so. 12 The land produced vegetation: plants bearing seed according to their kindsand trees bearing fruit with seed in it according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good. 13 And there was evening, and there was morning—the third day.

14 And God said, “Let there be lights in the vault of the sky to separate the day from the night, and let them serve as signs to mark sacred times, and days and years, 15 and let them be lights in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth.” And it was so. 16 God made two great lights—the greater light to govern the day and the lesser light to govern the night. He also made the stars. 17 God set them in the vault of the sky to give light on the earth, 18 to govern the day and the night, and to separate light from darkness. And God saw that it was good. 19 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fourth day.

20 And God said, “Let the water teem with living creatures, and let birds fly above the earth across the vault of the sky.” 21 So God created the great creatures of the sea and every living thing with which the water teems and that moves about in it, according to their kinds, and every winged bird according to its kind. And God saw that it was good. 22 God blessed them and said, “Be fruitful and increase in number and fill the water in the seas, and let the birds increase on the earth.” 23 And there was evening, and there was morning—the fifth day.

24 And God said, “Let the land produce living creatures according to their kinds: the livestock, the creatures that move along the ground, and the wild animals, each according to its kind.” And it was so. 25 God made the wild animals according to their kinds, the livestock according to their kinds, and all the creatures that move along the ground according to their kinds. And God saw that it was good.

26 Then God said, “Let us make mankind in our image, in our likeness, so that they may rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky, over the livestock and all the wild animals,[a] and over all the creatures that move along the ground.”

27 So God created mankind in his own image,
    in the image of God he created them;
    male and female he created them.

28 God blessed them and said to them, “Be fruitful and increase in number; fill the earth and subdue it. Rule over the fish in the sea and the birds in the sky and over every living creature that moves on the ground.”

29 Then God said, “I give you every seed-bearing plant on the face of the whole earth and every tree that has fruit with seed in it. They will be yours for food. 30 And to all the beasts of the earth and all the birds in the sky and all the creatures that move along the ground—everything that has the breath of life in it—I give every green plant for food.” And it was so.

31 God saw all that he had made, and it was very good. And there was evening, and there was morning—the sixth day.

bumper234

J C wrote: »

The truth will set you free ...:)

What's your opinion on the Tuam babies debacle? Why would your loving god allow this to happen?

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

What's your opinion on the Tuam babies debacle? Why would your loving god allow this to happen?

I think this is being discussed on another thread.

... and Human free will is why a loving God allows these things to happen.

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

Na dude you're doing it wrong.

For the real.comedy gold check this fairy tale out;)

You are entitled to your opinion ... but I have found that the real 'belly laughs' are generated when the opinion is proferred that we are all directly descended from a billion year old 'slimeball' through a series of selected mistakes!!!!:D:)

bumper234

J C wrote: »

You are entitled to your opinion ... but I have found that the real 'belly laughs' are generated when the opinion is proferred that we are all directly descended from a billion year old 'slimeball' through a series of selected mistakes!!!!:D:)

But whar is believable is a magic man in the sky who waved his fingers and made it all happen and then refuses to show himself apart from on slices of toast in Mexico :rolleyes:

bumper234

J C wrote: »

I think this is being discussed on another thread.

... and Human free will is why a loving God allows these things to happen.

A loving god who allows his representatives on earth to beat and rape and starve young children to death and dump their little bodies in a septic tank, who allows 5 year old's to die in agony from cancer, who allows famine to exist on a massive scale. He doesn't sound like a loving god to me he sounds like a sadistic sick bastard to me. I'm sure you will reply with blah blah he gave us free will blah blah but at the end of the day a 2 day old baby or a 5 year old boy are innocent and if you can't see how making them die in agony for no reason then i believe you are lost.

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

But whar is believable is a magic man in the sky who waved his fingers and made it all happen and then refuses to show himself apart from on slices of toast in Mexico :rolleyes:

It is indeed more believable ... except for the Mexican toast image!!!:)

God is logically transcendent from His Creation i.e. He exists outside His Creation ... so we wouldn't expect to see Him, this side of Heaven.

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

A loving god who allows his representatives on earth to beat and rape and starve young children to death and dump their little bodies in a septic tank, who allows 5 year old's to die in agony from cancer, who allows famine to exist on a massive scale. He doesn't sound like a loving god to me he sounds like a sadistic sick bastard to me. I'm sure you will reply with blah blah he gave us free will blah blah but at the end of the day a 2 day old baby or a 5 year old boy are innocent and if you can't see how making them die in agony for no reason then i believe you are lost.

Death and disease as well as Human evil are ever-present realities.

... but so too is life and health as well as Human love and goodness.

We are ultimately where we are, because of the Fall.
Humans can ameliorate some of its worst effects ... and we are duty-bound to do so, whenever possible.

Everybody should use their free-will to love and do good to their fellow-man ... and indeed themselves.

bumper234

J C wrote: »

Death and disease as well as Human evil are ever-present realities.

... but so too is life and health as well as Human love and goodness.

We are ultimately where we are, because of the Fall.
Humans can ameliorate some of its worst effects ... and we are duty-bound to do so, whenever possible.

Everybody should use their free-will to love and do good to their fellow-man ... and indeed themselves.

Excuses excuses excuses :rolleyes:

I pity you.

J C

bumper234 wrote: »

Excuses excuses excuses :rolleyes:

I pity you.

Where are the excuses?

What is the alternative?

That God should stop all sin ?
... and by doing so, turn us all into pre-programmed robots without the free will to love and to do good?

... or that God should eliminate death in a Fallen World, and thereby grant physical immortality to evil monsters like Hitler and Stalin (and thousands, possibly even millions, like them) ... thereby allowing them to prosecute their evil unrelentingly and forever on those they hate.

These are not easy or straightforward decisions for God ... if they were He'd have taken them long ago.

Benny_Cake

bumper234 wrote: »

What's your opinion on the Tuam babies debacle? Why would your loving god allow this to happen?

Mod: Back on topic or don't bother posting here.

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Where are the excuses?

What is the alternative?

That God should stop all sin ?
... and by doing so, turn us all into pre-programmed robots without the free will to love and to do good?

This is the bit i have never understood. Why would removing the ability, or desire, to sin prevent people from experiencing love?

I don't understand how a being with the supposed qualities the religious assign to it could not work out how to create a being that could not sin, but had free will in every other way.

Also, when you guys all get to heaven, which is supposed to be awesome and full of love, how will sin be managed there?

J C wrote: »

... or that God should eliminate death in a Fallen World, and thereby grant physical immortality to evil monsters like Hitler and Stalin (and thousands, possibly even millions, like them) ... thereby allowing them to prosecute their evil unrelentingly and forever on those they hate.

But if he had done the job correctly in the first place there would be mo monsters...

J C wrote: »

These are not easy or straightforward decisions for God ... if they were He'd have taken them long ago.

God is supposed to be pretty clever. I mean, its almost as if he doesn't exist...

MrP

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

This is the bit i have never understood. Why would removing the ability, or desire, to sin prevent people from experiencing love?

Good question Mr P.

Removing free will would effectively turn us into pre-programmed 'robots' incapable of either sin/evil or love/goodness.
God warned Adam and Eve not to 'eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' i.e. not to partake of Satan's hidden knowledge and thereby become sinful ... they ignored God ... and the rest is history.

MrPudding wrote: »

I don't understand how a being with the supposed qualities the religious assign to it could not work out how to create a being that could not sin, but had free will in every other way.

Even God cannot Create a contradiction in terms.

MrPudding wrote: »

Also, when you guys all get to heaven, which is supposed to be awesome and full of love, how will sin be managed there?

We don't know ... and we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.
If we continue to retain our free-will as spirit beings, which I think we will, we could still possibly rebel against God ... just like Lucifer and the fallen angels have done ... but I would be hopeful that nobody will when they see Heaven and meet God.

MrPudding wrote: »

But if he had done the job correctly in the first place there would be mo monsters...

He Created us perfect ... but Adam and Eve decided to use their free will for evil ... and we are still living with the consequences.

MrPudding wrote: »

God is supposed to be pretty clever. I mean, its almost as if he doesn't exist...

God is infinitely wise ... but love and sin are two opposite sides of free-will ... and it's up to us to love more and sin less.:)

... so will you join me in spreading the love, Mr P??

MrPudding

J C wrote: »

Good question Mr P.

Removing free will would effectively turn us into pre-programmed 'robots' incapable of either sin/evil or love/goodness.
God warned Adam and Eve not to 'eat of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil' i.e. not to partake of Satan's hidden knowledge and thereby become sinful ... they ignored God ... and the rest is history.

Even God cannot Create a contradiction in terms.

Preventing people from sining does not require a removal of free will. One can still have a choice of actions, with a specific set of rules. Also, I still don't get the connection between sinning, or inability to sin, and the ability to love. Can you explain why not being able to sin would also mean one could not love?

J C wrote: »

We don't know ... and we will have to cross that bridge when we come to it.
If we continue to retain our free-will as spirit beings, which I think we will, we could still possibly rebel against God ... just like Lucifer and the fallen angels have done ... but I would be hopeful that nobody will when they see Heaven and meet God.

Hmmm, I know that some christian, you friend wolfsbane for example, beleive that once in heaven free will is removed so no one can offend god and everyone can love him completely. That sounds hideous. It also seems to imply, if they are correct, that it is possible to love without freewill. Also, is it not disturbing that being with direct access to your god chose to exercise their free will in rebellion? What does that say about your god? Being that he created and interacted with directly did not think it was worth staying in his good graces. Hmmm, I wonder what is wrong with him.

J C wrote: »

He Created us perfect ... but Adam and Eve decided to use their free will for evil ... and we are still living with the consequences.

Yes, still living with the consequences of the stupid test.

J C wrote: »

God is infinitely wise ... but love and sin are two opposite sides of free-will ... and it's up to us to love more and sin less.:)

Can you please explain this please? I don't understand how love and sin can be opposite. LOve and hate, got that. Sinfulness and goodness, got that. But sin and love I just don't get.

J C wrote: »

... so will you join me in spreading the love, Mr P??

I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

MrP

AtomicHorror

A little gift for J_C:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core.html#.U5r5t_mwLGI

Now we know where the waters of the firmament went to, right? :pac:

Safehands

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A little gift for J_C:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core.html#.U5r5t_mwLGI
Now we know where the waters of the firmament went to, right? :pac:

No, please don't indulge him!
God is supposed to be all loving, yet he seemingly behaved like the worst kind of megalomaniac monster during the flood, killing innocent kids and babies along with beautiful animals. This is the behaviour of a loving God??? I suppose it is a kind of a biblical collateral damage issue. For the greater good, so that man would sin no more, kind of thing. Boy, he got that one wrong!

JC always takes 2 + 2 and makes 64 when it comes to the flood. He takes the bible literally (except when it doesn't suit like in Deuteronomy) but then extrapolates that all the mountains were formed by the flood, even though it doesn't say that in the bible. Sure two plus two can be sixty four if God wants it to be.

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

A little gift for J_C:

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn25723-massive-ocean-discovered-towards-earths-core.html#.U5r5t_mwLGI

Now we know where the waters of the firmament went to, right? :pac:

... and also where the waters of Noah's Flood came from ... a double gift actually.:pac:

Thanks AH.:)

J C

MrPudding wrote: »

Preventing people from sining does not require a removal of free will. One can still have a choice of actions, with a specific set of rules. Also, I still don't get the connection between sinning, or inability to sin, and the ability to love. Can you explain why not being able to sin would also mean one could not love?

Freedom provides freedom to do good or ill ... to love or to hate ... and you can write all of the rules or laws you like ... they won't prevent people from doing evil or sinning.

MrPudding wrote: »

Hmmm, I know that some christian, you friend wolfsbane for example, beleive that once in heaven free will is removed so no one can offend god and everyone can love him completely. That sounds hideous. It also seems to imply, if they are correct, that it is possible to love without freewill. Also, is it not disturbing that being with direct access to your god chose to exercise their free will in rebellion? What does that say about your god? Being that he created and interacted with directly did not think it was worth staying in his good graces. Hmmm, I wonder what is wrong with him.

I don't agree that we will lose our free-will when we die and reach Heaven ... as for the great rebellion by Satan ... he wanted more than he was entitled to and chose to do evil rather than good ... using his God-given free-will to hate rather than to love.

MrPudding wrote: »

Yes, still living with the consequences of the stupid test.

We're still living with the consequences of sin entering the world through the free actions of a man and a woman.

MrPudding wrote: »

Can you please explain this please? I don't understand how love and sin can be opposite. LOve and hate, got that. Sinfulness and goodness, got that. But sin and love I just don't get.

When we sin we behave selfishly towards God or man ... and the opposite is to love God and man.

MrPudding wrote: »

I just threw up a bit in my mouth.

MrP

Why do you not want to spread love?

J C

Safehands wrote: »

God is supposed to be all loving, yet he seemingly behaved like the worst kind of megalomaniac monster during the flood, killing innocent kids and babies along with beautiful animals. This is the behaviour of a loving God??? I suppose it is a kind of a biblical collateral damage issue. For the greater good, so that man would sin no more, kind of thing. Boy, he got that one wrong!

The situation was in extremis ... and the thoughts of men's hearts were continually evil in the lead up to the flood.

Humanity had become so depraved that it was literally 'Hell on Earth' ... and God ended it all with the Flood.

AtomicHorror

Safehands wrote: »

No, please don't indulge him!
God is supposed to be all loving, yet he seemingly behaved like the worst kind of megalomaniac monster during the flood, killing innocent kids and babies along with beautiful animals. This is the behaviour of a loving God??? I suppose it is a kind of a biblical collateral damage issue. For the greater good, so that man would sin no more, kind of thing. Boy, he got that one wrong!

JC always takes 2 + 2 and makes 64 when it comes to the flood. He takes the bible literally (except when it doesn't suit like in Deuteronomy) but then extrapolates that all the mountains were formed by the flood, even though it doesn't say that in the bible. Sure two plus two can be sixty four if God wants it to be.

I'm familiar with J_C's personality

J C

AtomicHorror wrote: »

I'm familiar with J_C's personality

Yes ... we're all growing old together!!!:)

Safehands

J C wrote: »

The situation was in extremis ... and the thoughts of men's hearts were continually evil in the lead up to the flood.
Humanity had become so depraved that it was literally 'Hell on Earth' ... and God ended it all with the Flood.

Is humanity any less depraved today? JC there were kids around. Little Kids are innocent. They do not deserve to suffer and die by drowning, no matter what your cause is. Nazi Germany could have been described as being 'in extremis'. The innocence deserve to live, no matter what. So, in your version, God murdered young kids for his own reasons. That is not the action of a loving being.

J C

Safehands wrote: »

Is humanity any less depraved today? JC there were kids around. Little Kids are innocent. They do not deserve to suffer and die by drowning, no matter what your cause is. Nazi Germany could have been described as being 'in extremis'. The innocence deserve to live, no matter what. So, in your version, God murdered young kids for his own reasons. That is not the action of a loving being.

Evil today is nothing on the scale and intensity of the pre-flood situation where the thoughts of men were totally and continually evil i.e. never doing good.

We don't know if there were any children around then, such was the likely extent of child sacrifice, possible enforced, in those evil times.
The fact that Noah's children were all about one hundred years old and no children are recorded as entering the Ark tells it's own story.
Genesis 6 also suggests some kind of enforced cross-breeding between the 'Nephilim' and Humans to create giant hybrids, which would likely be sexually sterile - which could result in the eventual demise of Humanity had this continued unabated. Very high levels of sexual promiscuity and STD transmission would also likely result in increased levels of infertility and in extremis, total infertility.

Humanity appears to have been 'down to the wire' in terms of its very survival, at it's own hands and the hands of the Nephilim ... so God stepped in to save, the only family, that was willing to be saved.

We live in societies today where good predominates over evil ... we cannot even begin to imagine the depths of depravity in a society, like the ante-diluvian one, where total evil reigned supreme all of the time.

Safehands

J C wrote: »

Evil today is nothing on the scale and intensity of the pre-flood situation where the thoughts of men were totally and continually evil i.e. never doing good.

We don't know if there were any children around then, such was the likely extent of child sacrifice, possible enforced, in those evil times.
The fact that Noah's children were all about one hundred years old and no children are recorded as entering the Ark tells it's own story.
Genesis 6 also suggests some kind of enforced cross-breeding between the 'Nephilim' and Humans to create giant hybrids, which would likely be sexually sterile - which could result in the eventual demise of Humanity had this continued unabated. Very high levels of sexual promiscuity and STD transmission would also likely result in increased levels of infertility and in extremis, total infertility.

See JC, this is where your arguments fall apart. I can see that you take the bible literally. But when you use the words "likely" or "possible" you are then putting your own slant on what happened and losing the argument.
The above extract from your reply demonstrates perfectly, how you twist accounts to suit your own story telling purposes. You say "We don't know if there were any children around then ". We absolutely do, because if there were no children then humankind would have become extinct without the need for a flood. It suits your account to suggest that maybe God didn't kill innocent kids. If the story is true, you cannot escape that fact JC, God killed innocent babies and little children.
You then go on to "suggest" that it is possible that there were sexually transmitted diseases and possibly huge levels of promiscuity leading to infertility. Come on JC, that is the fruit of a fertile mind. Take the bible literally by all means, but that is as far as it goes. After that, your speculation is as accurate as mine. But would it not have been far better to wipe out the bad ones by infertility rather than killing everyone, including the kids.
No matter what way you look at it, the account of the flood paints God as a killer not as a father who loves us all equally, not matter what we have done.

J C

Safehands wrote: »

See JC, this is where your arguments fall apart. I can see that you take the bible literally. But when you use the words "likely" or "possible" you are then putting your own slant on what happened and losing the argument.
The above extract from your reply demonstrates perfectly, how you twist accounts to suit your own story telling purposes. You say "We don't know if there were any children around then ". We absolutely do, because if there were no children then humankind would have become extinct without the need for a flood. It suits your account to suggest that maybe God didn't kill innocent kids. If the story is true, you cannot escape that fact JC, God killed innocent babies and little children.
You then go on to "suggest" that it is possible that there were sexually transmitted diseases and possibly huge levels of promiscuity leading to infertility. Come on JC, that is the fruit of a fertile mind. Take the bible literally by all means, but that is as far as it goes. After that, your speculation is as accurate as mine.

I have never claimed to be a Bible literalist ... in fact I take a plain reading of scripture ... and part of a plain reading is making reasonable deductions based on such a plain reading.
You are correct that such deductions are only deductions ... but so is your claim that God killed innocent children and indeed innocent people in the Flood.
One thing is certain ... the Flood was worldwide and catastrophic, killing every land creature not on the Ark.

Whether children were killed isn't known ... but in a society that is unremittingly evil, the presence of innocent children is certainly not a given.
It was no accident that the first people into the gas chambers, after they arrived in the Nazi extermination camps, were little children ... evil cannot tolerate innocence - as it is a reminder of what evil has lost.

If you're speculating that there were innocent children around at the flood ... then I'm entitled to point out the absence of children on the Ark and the fact that all of Mankind (other than Noah and his immediate family) were irredeemably evil.

Safehands wrote: »

But would it not have been far better to wipe out the bad ones by infertility rather than killing everyone, including the kids.
No matter what way you look at it, the account of the flood paints God as a killer not as a father who loves us all equally, not matter what we have done.

The problem would appear to be that we were down to Noah and his three sons and their wives ... and everyone else was irredeemably evil ... and possibly infertile ... and if allowed to proceed, this would have resulted in the wipe-out of all Humanity, including Noah and his family.
This would have meant that Jesus Christ could not be born as a man ... and thus God's plan for the salvation of Humanity would have been thwarted.

Safehands wrote: »

You say "We don't know if there were any children around then ". We absolutely do, because if there were no children then humankind would have become extinct without the need for a flood.

The objective of the Flood was not the extinction of Humanity ... but it's preservation in the line of Noah and his descendants. The problem seems to be that evil was so widespread that it was threatening the very survival of all life and especially all Human life on the planet.

God loves us all equally and indeed loved everyone equally before the Flood ... but there comes a point when we must decide if we love Him in return.
In the case of the Flood nobody was disbarred from the Ark ... but nobody took up the offer of being saved on it either (other than Noah and his family).
The same is true of Salvation ... nobody is disbarred from it ... but it is up to each person to decide if the wish to be Saved ... or not.

Safehands

J C wrote: »

You are correct that such deductions are only deductions ... but so is your claim that God killed innocent children and indeed innocent people in the Flood.

If the story of the flood is correct then God killed everyone, other than Noah's family. That means that any children died also. So how is a deduction that God killed innocent children not totally logical. Unless.... here's a great one for you JC.... The children were evil too because they came from evil parents, so they had to be killed. Or, They were going to turn evil, so God killed them before that could happen.

J C wrote: »

One thing is certain ... the Flood was worldwide and catastrophic, killing every land creature not on the Ark.

No it isn't certain, except to people who totally accept the biblical accounts. If the biblical story did not exist at all, no evidence would have presented itself, causing scientists to investigate a massive flood. The evidence that does "exist" is evidence that creationists have come up with to help them to justify the story. It is not irrefutable proof which is accepted by everyone.

What you need is for the following scenario to occur: "The flood happened and here is the undeniable, irrefutable evidence. See, Mr. Professors in Harvard, Yale, MIT, Cambridge and Oxford, oh and David Attenborough as well."
In reply the honourable professors and David Attenborough say "Yes, we are convinced. This evidence can no longer be denied. We will change all of our lectures. We will teach the Biblical account from now on because of this scientifically accurate evidence. Thank you so much Mr Creationist, you were right and we and our thousands of colleagues in every university on the planet, were wrong all along"

Can you ever see that happening? NO!

Frank Bullitt

Safehands wrote: »

If the story of the flood is correct then God killed everyone, other than Noah's family. That means that any children died also. So how is a deduction that God killed innocent children not totally logical. Unless.... here's a great one for you JC.... The children were evil too because they came from evil parents, so they had to be killed. Or, They were going to turn evil, so God killed them before that could happen.

Sir Attenboroughs analogy of this point is very accurate I think. The pure savagery of nature is often overlooked.

Safehands

Gintonious wrote: »

Sir Attenboroughs analogy of this point is very accurate I think. The pure savagery of nature is often overlooked.

I don't really get this point. I think this clip is quite confusing, sorry.

SaveOurLyric

J C wrote: »

Freedom provides freedom to do good or ill ... to love or to hate ... and you can write all of the rules or laws you like ... they won't prevent people from doing evil or sinning.

I don't agree that we will lose our free-will when we die and reach Heaven ... as for the great rebellion by Satan ... he wanted more than he was entitled to and chose to do evil rather than good ... using his God-given free-will to hate rather than to love.

Interesting new research on the illusion of free will :
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/science/free-will-could-be-the-result-of-background-noise-in-the-brain-study-suggests-9553678.html