How do you explain this with regard to an all-powerful god?
-
Peace enquirer,
I appreciate your views on free-will,however i dont think free-will is 'absolute',i know that because i cant just wish/will for the laws of gravity to be suspended or for free ice-cream for life..
Free-will has nothing to do with a being super-hero or a genie. It has to do with thought. You can think whatever you want and act out that thought however you want within your physical capacity.
Anyway,the point being made is that if god knows everything in advance then the future is fixed by him....so the free-will is limited by gods prior knowldege/the fixed determination...So why could not an all-powerful god determine the future as mostly good (except for a little 'resistance to aid development.) but still give humans free-will,limited or absolute...?
I don't believe in fixed determination or prior knowledge. God is not limited to our linear time and space.
There is no limit to free-will. We are where we are because of free-will. As for why we even have free-will, that's another thread entirely.To those who say god has fixed laws,or god cannot or does not do things beyond normal logic,then what of creation from nothing,miracles,etc....?
What miracles? Everything that happens does so according to God's laws. Some things are misunderstood as miracles, and some things we just haven't explored/understood yet.
And if god only works in a 'logical' way that can be understood by humans,then why is soo much religion geared to 'faith'/'allah knows best',and why is there little 'objective' proof for the tradtional view of god?
I'm not sure about religions, and I'd rather not broaden the scope of your questions even further. Let's keep the focus in God. As for objective proof of the traditional view, I'm not sure anything like that exists, unless someone has a picture of God sitting on a throne spearing lightning bolts into countries.
Also why are people limiting god and what he can do by applying normal human 'logic' to his workings....?
Who has done this? If it's me you're referring to, all I said was that God created the universe with structure and laws. To take it further, our only interaction with God must take place within these confines because that is all we can perceive. It makes no sense for God to interact with us outside of the only world we can perceive. So long as we keep our focus on the nuts and bolts of reality, all we will see is nuts and bolts. And nuts and bolts are what make up objective proof. If one wants to delve into the mind of God, per se, then one must look within, into the realm of the subjective.
Lastly, logic is not human, otherwise, it would not be universally agreed upon. Logic was not invented but discovered.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace open-mind,tay,idolfree and all. Openmind; the book is called ; 'the non-existence of god' by nicholas everitt. By routledge books. Google it if you wish...
Tay and idol-free,you two (unless i am mistaken.) subscribe to 'panentheism',or us being a part of the god...? If this is so,then how can it be said that only ONE god created laws and processes that are fixed...? Does ONE part of the god have more power/say/will than the other parts...? Why would the parts of the god be at war/disagree with the other parts...?
At what stage does the ONE god intervene and limit our free-will...? Why cant my free-will will peace for all? Do we have free-will as to whether we get to heaven or not? (or is it gods will that we get there?)
And finally,if the ONE god is all-powerful,then surely HE takes SOME or even ALL the responsibility for all the suffering and mischief in the world....? When did a responsible boss ever blame the free-will of his workers for the failure of HIS company...? Looks like god/his followers are making many excuses to run from gods failures in the world....?
Peace all. -
Peace,
Enquirer, i also believe we are part of God, but we don't take in 'the backseat' of God, we don't 'use up' space. It is one All, undivided and all-connected. The conciousness of God is everywhere.
As for His 'failures', let me ask you this
To what exstent may God force His will upon you? To what limit will you give up your freewill to have only 'goodness' in this world? And would you understand good without knowing bad? Plus can you explain the creation of this excistence without an intelligence?
Peace
-
Peace enquirer,
You stated
Tay and idol-free,you two (unless i am mistaken.) subscribe to 'panentheism',or us being a part of the god...?
I can only speak for myself...yes, sort of.
how can it be said that only ONE god created laws and processes that are fixed...? Does ONE part of the god have more power/say/will than the other parts...?
The soul is eternal, the mind is material.
Why would the parts of the god be at war/disagree with the other parts...?
Because these "parts" are material, temporary, works of the mind, which is not "part" of the divine.
At what stage does the ONE god intervene and limit our free-will...?
At a time appointed.
Why cant my free-will will peace for all?
It can. Peace is already there. Everything else is an illusion.
Do we have free-will as to whether we get to heaven or not? (or is it gods will that we get there?)
My understanding is that heaven is not a place, but a result. You either prime yourself for the next phase, or you don't.
And finally,if the ONE god is all-powerful,then surely HE takes SOME or even ALL the responsibility for all the suffering and mischief in the world....?
You're missing the point. Suffering and mischief is an illusion. It's like virtual reality. You put on the glasses and you see all this crap, and you do what you can to make things better. But eventually, it will be "game over", and you take the glasses off, and you're back to peace.
When did a responsible boss ever blame the free-will of his workers for the failure of HIS company...?
Huh? Sorry, but you're analogy is terrible. The boss did not create the workers.
Looks like god/his followers are making many excuses to run from gods failures in the world....?
Call it what you want, but if you want to discuss this from a non-judgemental point of view, I would suggest accepting the premises I've explained in furthering your query, because what you've offered in that last comment isn't even in the same universe as what I've been explaining. There's no progress in repeatedly starting from square one.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace enquirer,
Next time, state that in your original post. Instead of going out of your way to be vague for whatever reason( D ???)
In reading a book about the 'non-existence' of god,a person put forward the comment
Be direct, give us the name of the book and author just as you did on Page Two
the book is called ; 'the non-existence of god' by nicholas everitt.
Good job and thank you. Wasn't that hard, right?
Peace.
-
Peace tay,arnoldyasin,and all. Tay if you think suffering is just an illusion,then i will leave you too it bro...That understanding is of little consolation to starving children is it? I cant seriously entertain people who are just avoiding and be-littling the existence of suffering as an illusion,in a vain attempt to glorify a concept of god,or their own personal beliefs.....Seems irresponsible....Anyway....
Arnoldyasin; I can explain the existence of this world without an 'intelligent' creator by cause and effect,evolution,and the notion that all that exists (forms of energy.) has always existed anyway (ie, is eternal.) and didnt need anything to create it....If someone says that there must be a cause for every effect,well what caused god? The concept of everthing being eternal and 'uncreated' is similiar and more logical than the concept of ONE god being eternal and 'uncreated'...
Also,how are we a part of god,when god is supposed to be all-powerful and all-knowing and we are obviously not....? Im very curious on this one arnie,i hope you and/or idol-free can explain this one for me...Thanks... handshake -
Peace,
That is the fatal flaw people always fall into. You need a first mover. Something that started the first move. This can only be done with an intelligence, a will to move. Unconciousness energy has no reason to move, so it can never be started without an intelligence deciding to start it all.And the eternal universe has been disproven already, not just by the bigbang, but also by that all energy should have been dispursed so far from each other it could have never formed any stars and planets like it is now.
And how can eternal energy be more logical then a conciousness that started it all? You have to weigh the two theories, then the creator will come out as the logical one, as there is no explenation for the finetuning in the universe. Even the multiple universes theory cannot explain it, as you still need a perfect start that creates these universes. It is calculated that it can never be formed through trial and error.
Plus, i also believe in evolution and formation, but what has this to do with God or not? The question is, what was the first mover. This can only be an intelligence.
As for us being part of God, without us having any real power, is because God decides how much power He gives us. He decides how much we are allowed to do. You think because we use His 'energy' we have the same power as Him? You forget that He created us, and the limits of how much power we have. Just like we can build a fast car or a slow car. God decides how much we can have. And there can be only one everything, so we can never be all-powerfull and all-wise, as only the one that encompasses all has this power. You cannot have 2 everythings, there can be only one unlimited conciousness.
Peace
-
Peace enquirer,
You stated
if you think suffering is just an illusion,then i will leave you too it bro...That understanding is of little consolation to starving children is it? I cant seriously entertain people who are just avoiding and be-littling the existence of suffering as an illusion,in a vain attempt to glorify a concept of god,or their own personal beliefs.....Seems irresponsible....
Whoah whoah whoah...
What's with the attitude?Here's what I said, and apparently the only thing you felt worthy of replying to
Suffering and mischief is an illusion. It's like virtual reality. You put on the glasses and you see all this crap, and you do what you can to make things better. But eventually, it will be "game over", and you take the glasses off, and you're back to peace.
Your mind is temporary, your soul is eternal. I'm sorry if this nutshell isn't compassionate enough for you, but if I took the time to explain every facet of this understanding, I'd spend the rest of my life typing to you.
But now, since you've taken the liberty of assuming I am belittling suffering and vainly attempting to glorify God, please entertain this
Where does all perception take place?
Is it somewhere "out there", or is it in the arena of your own mind?However you decide to answer, or not, know that my position is that all perception takes place in the mind, and the mind is a temporary vehicle for this world only. There is no "out there". Does this mean I feel no compassion towards humanity? Of course not.
But your question wasn't about whether or not suffering exists. Your question was why would God allow it to exist. And as everyone has explained, you can't have part-time free-will. It's all or nothing, by definition, or it's not "free". A lifetime is not even a blink of an eye in comparison to eternity. This illusion of life and how we deal with it will be a speck of a memory, if at all, upon the next phase of existence.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace enquirer,
Please don't rush blaming the god for the starving children. In fact, the god has put on this earth enough food for everyone and even more, would you deny it?
The problem arises when some "civilized" people, abusing the free-will provided by the god, decide to put "imaginary" boundries to "imaginary" countries preventing humans from moving freely in the lands, looking for food when needed. And the irony in this situation is that the animals can migrate freely but not humans.
Would you still blame the god?
-
Peace someone,tay and all.
Someone;Im sorry but if god is all-powerful,and can ease suffering when he wants then i do blame him totally for playing games with humanity....Just saying 'free-will','free-will', is not enough for me.....My little children have free-will,but would i allow them to do something that would definately harm them if i had the power to stop them...? No sirey,i would stop my little children from harmful behaviour,and teach them why this behaviour is harmful....I hold my childrens hands when i cross the road as i know that they are not old enough to cross it properly themselves without harming themselves....In this way i show compassion,concern and love for my children.....Why is this god playing games with members of humanity who are mentally and spiritually immature by allowing them to kill each other,oppress each other etc,all as part of some great concept of free-will and a test....? >( > > I show more compassion than this god by actually teaching my kids how to cross a road,but also holding their hands before they have learnt how to cross safely.....God seems too busy with his image, his glory and his schizophrenic test,than to actually help out his people practically,when many of his people are blatantly not ready for the full use of free-will....Tay;ok,you are entitled to your view,and im happy you try to be compassionate,i just find your view impractical in the real world,and how do you show me that their is only mind perception and no 'out there'.....? What am i typing on if thats the case?.... muscle
-
Peace elke. If you keep pondering these 'tough' questions the answers may come....He/she who dares wins.... yay
-
Peace,
Funny that in starwars the same conversation takes place and which results in him becoming darth vader...Skywalker is asked if he would force people in doing the right thing, he says yes, then she answers with that he is just as worse as the tirants he hates...To know what love means, you have to see the opposite to appriate what love really means. It is time people will take the blame on them selfs....
-
Peace arnold. So the way the world is currently,is the way god wants it?
I dont mean forcing or negating peoples free-will/choices,i mean counteracting or defusing harmful use of the free-will....similair to parental control for young children,and/or law enforcement for societies long term peace and stability... -
Peace enquirer,
Tay;ok,you are entitled to your view,and im happy you try to be compassionate
sun
i just find your view impractical in the real world
Of course it's impractical in the real world. My view is about understanding where the real world fits in the big picture, in regard to your line of questions. Is it fair to ask me something metaphysical and then tell me it's impractical?
how do you show me that their is only mind perception and no 'out there'.....?
I can't show you anything, because for all you know, I could be a figment of your imagination, part of one long dream. The question is, how do you show yourself that there is an "out there" while everything you perceive takes place within?
What am i typing on if thats the case?....
Something called a keyboard, that you see with your mind, that you feel with your mind, and that you believe, in your mind, that other people see it the same way, and are reading your words.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace tay. You must agonise over simple decisions like whether to have water or fruit juice for breakfast my friend.....
Anyway,if all is part of my minds perception then why do i require things from outside of it to satisfy me,eg food?
Are you talking about the ken wilbur type 'one mind' theory or some such thing as; 'there is only mind'/one mind?
I am not aware that asking why god does not intervene in suffering is necessarily a pure metaphysical question...? handshake -
Peace arnold. So the way the world is currently,is the way god wants it?
I dont mean forcing or negating peoples free-will/choices,i mean counteracting or defusing harmful use of the free-will....similair to parental control for young children,and/or law enforcement for societies long term peace and stability...No, God doesn't want it in this way, but He wants us to figure that out for ourselves. I believe in multiple lives, not like reincarnation, but in several universes. We are still in evolution, our minds and our bodies. What we see now is a turning point in our evolution. But unfornately, not everyone is evolving in the same pace. That is the problem, but in the same time, it what makes people evolve. This difference in evolution of the mind, is what makes people grow. There will be a moment in our excistence that we will be beyond causing pain to each other. Then we will be at a point of evolution, you don't have to ask this any more.
Where was God during the holocaust, and where is God while people are starving in Africa. This is a question you ask, but i wonder, where were the humans? Where were the people who believed in the Good? I believe every soul will move on. And the harm done to it in previous phases of evolution will not be questioned by the soul, as it was meant to be his phase. I know i am lucky, i haven't starved in my life, or have seen war. But i still had my little share of tears and pains, but when i look back, i thank God for every tear. Because they are my tears. They were not meant for anybody else, they were meant for me. Even those tears i see as a gift.
The humanrace already has the keys to paradise, but they don't want to open the door yet...
Peace
-
Peace enquirer,
You must agonise over simple decisions like whether to have water or fruit juice for breakfast my friend.....
Actually I prefer coffee
if all is part of my minds perception then why do i require things from outside of it to satisfy me,eg food
Like I said, this is virtual reality, like a video game. While you're in the game, your "character" needs sustenance. The illusory body requires illusory food to maintain it's illusory vitality. Yet this entire sequence is still only experienced from within.
Are you talking about the ken wilbur type 'one mind' theory or some such thing as; 'there is only mind'/one mind?
Not that I know of. Have I not explained myself well for you to figure out what I'm talking about? Please ask more questions if you feel the need.
I am not aware that asking why god does not intervene in suffering is necessarily a pure metaphysical question...?
Any discussion regarding the unseen source of all creation is metaphysical, by definition.
Peace,
Tay -
Peace
I show more compassion than this god by actually teaching my kids how to cross a road,but also holding their hands before they have learnt how to cross safely.....
See, this is where your whole argument derives from. You keep forcing your own thoughts/beliefs/actions/ways of doing things unto God, when in fact you cannot. This idea of God states that He is omniscient, so obviously, He knows things that we humans do not. There are too many variables for us to know, but there will never be too many for Him. When you look at the world through your own human eyes, you see what's going on and you are compelled to ask "why is there so much corruption/starvation/etc. when an omnipotent God could fix all that?" This is perfectly fine. I've even asked myself this. But again, I realized that, in definition, God knows all, and we do not, so He also knows what's best. I hope you can come to think about it for a little while and realize this. Please, none of us are here to win the argument. Please, just have an open mind once.
I can explain the existence of this world without an 'intelligent' creator by cause and effect,evolution,and the notion that all that exists (forms of energy.) has always existed anyway (ie, is eternal.) and didnt need anything to create it....If someone says that there must be a cause for every effect,well what caused god? The concept of everthing being eternal and 'uncreated' is similiar and more logical than the concept of ONE god being eternal and 'uncreated'...
Before I even reply to this, let me let you know that brother Arnold responded to you and you have yet to respond to him. You kind of just subtly dodged it and went along with other posts, which is very, very disrespectful. Oh well, only the status quo.
Anyway, my first point is that I don't think you understand the amount of evidence (empirical evidence, by the way, not "life experiences." Sorry -[) there is for the big bang. Read up on it.
Secondly, the Kalam Cosmological argument has already disproven the idea of the universe being eternal. The first argument is based on the impossibility of an actual infinite. The author shows that an actual infinite cannot exist; an eternal universe is an actual infinite; therefore an eternal universe is impossible The second argument is based on the impossibility of the formation of an actual infinite by successive addition. A collection (in this case the universe) formed by successive addition cannot be actually infinite; An eternal universe is a collection formed by successive addition; Therefore, a universe cannot be infinite. He uses all this to prove that the universe has a cause of its existence. The Kalam Cosmological argument is ancient, and very ahead of its time. I suggest you read up on things and educate yourself before you ramble on about something that had already been disproven. Here's the link to start you off http//www.leaderu.com/truth/3truth11.html Although I know you will some how dodge this, accuse me of something or just not respond at all, much like you did to arnold. So sad, a man old enough to have children has less decency and respect on a forum (where we discuss things, and respond to every argument that someone makes when arguing with them) than a naive and idiotic (it's unethical to debate me, remember?) 14 year old like myself. So, so sad. Oh well.
Peace
-
Peace all. One thing i note which is quite amusing,and at the same time sad...That is when people quote texts,ideas,theories and 'common assumptions' in order to justify their ideas and theories...
All this talk of the cosmological/ontological/scientific arguments for god are old hat,have been disproven by many scientists,and are even considered weak arguements by believers in god... I think many people just quote theories which agree with their own subjective 'version' of reality rather than actually evaluating reality on its won merits by observing the world...Im sure many would reject or choose not to closely study any good scientific theory which refuted their 'conditioned' beliefs about god...
If believing in this monotheistic concept of god was soo obvious and scientifically valid, then most of the worlds scientists would be monotheists...So why accept or quote the science/evidence of people whose conclusion is not to believe in god?
Many times i read or hear people using fancy science talk,rhethoric and eloquent discourses to justify their unsound theories and conditioned/automated beliefs about god...This to me is like listening to a virgin teenager giving advice on sexual relations and marriage because he has read a few books on sex....
Wisdom is learnt from making sense of experience,not from relating scientific jargon which has not been thought through properly,or has not been personally verified to a reasonable level...