Atheist Arguments

I'm searching for the truth and having a little trouble with it. Hopefully you all can help me with this. What I'm struggling with is whether or not there is a god. I'm a deist because my reasoning tells me that most likely there is a god but I feel troubled about it because I want to believe the truth and if there is no god I want to believe that. I'm 100% sure that all the revealed religions are false but I'm no where near sure that deism is true. The reason I'm unsure is because I don't fully comprehend the reasons why atheists are atheists. I feel like deism and atheism are my only two options and fear that I chose deism only because I can comprehend it. I want to comprehend all world views so that the one I believe I can believe with conviction. I'm not saying that I don't comprehend the definition of an atheist. I'm saying I can't comprehend how this universe can exist without a god but I do believe atheist do comprehend this because there is so many of them that seem very sure there is not a god.

Their arguments for the origin of the universe trouble me the most. Like I would ask," Where did the universe come from if not from God?" They would answer," From the big bang." I would respond," Well, I also believe in the big bang but it obviously has a cause and that cause I call God." They would respond," No it doesn't need a cause just like god wouldn't need a cause." I would ask," Well, if you don't believe in God then what happened before the big bang?" They answer," There was no before because at the big bang time started. So, there was no time before the big bang." I ask," But what was the cause of the big bang?" They answer," There was no cause of it. The big bang was the first cause." I ask," How are you so sure that there is no cause of the big bang?" They answer," Because there is no god and this is the most logical explanation."

Sometimes I hear atheist admit there is a cause to the universe but that cause is a thing called the multiverse. I would ask," What caused the big bang?" They would answer," It came out of the multiverse." I respond," What is the multiverse?" They answer," It is a universe outside of our universe that generates an infinite amount of universes. Each universe has different natural laws and we live in a lucky one that is suitable for life. Our universe appears to be finely tuned for life by an intelligent designer only because we haven't seen the other universes." I ask," Where did the multiverse come from?" They respond," It either came from another multiverse or it is eternal." I respond," This multiverse sounds very complex and if it exists then it seems that it requires a god even more than our universe does." They respond," Not really because our universe doesn't require a god so there is no logical reason to assume that the multiverse does." I ask," How are you so sure this multiverse exists?" They answer,"Because there is no god and this is the most logical explanation."

Their arguments confuse me! I would take their arguments as nonsense if they weren't usually reasonable people. These people are usually very intelligent and many of them are smarter than me. Their intelligence makes me believe that maybe I'm not smart enough to fully understand what they are saying. I just don't get these arguments. I feel like they are unreasonable and prove nothing. It's like they are trying to avoid saying there is a god instead of proving there isn't one. It reminds me of when I was a Christian and all my arguments were just stories to make it seem like Jesus was God instead of proving he was. I feel like for me to be an atheist I would have to sacrifice my reason and have a blind lack of faith but this can't be so because atheists are mostly very intelligent reasonable people.

Please help me out guys. If any of you comprehend these kind of arguments then please explain them to me because I just don't get it. If any of you are atheist or ever been then I really want to hear from you. Thanks guys.

There is nothing wrong with being confused. So am I. It is long but here are my reasons for being a Deist. I discuss the same problems in it you just mentioned: https://panendeism.forumotion.com/deism-f4/the-paradox-of-nothingness-and-the-case-for-the-new-deism-t241.htm

There was a time when I considered myself an atheist leaning Agnostic. At the time my reasons for my atheistic beliefs had more to do with my narrow conception of "God" then anything else. The only definition of God that I was aware of was that of a mythic theistic God that was supposed to meddle in the daily lives of ordinary men and women and act out emotionally with needs, punishments and rewards. This never made sense to me, nor was it compatible with my experience of daily life.

After arguing theology with friends and relatives for a while I eventually settled into Agnosticism with the belief that we can never really know if there is a God or not.

Then I came across the term "Deism" and it all seemed to make sense to me. I found a belief that could explain the reason for existence that was also compatible with reason and everyday experience.

Since I first discovered Deism my conception of god has continued to change and develop to the point that it's not all that different from the way atheists view existence. The main difference is that I'm willing to recognize the mystery and divinity of existence and am willing to apply traditionally religious terminology in order to describe this mystery. It's really a tomāto/tomäto thing.

In any case I'm still agnostic about my beliefs (although I don't consider myself an Agnostic) and try to stay open to different interpretations and ideas about "the divine".

As far as there reason other atheists hold their beliefs, I'm sure many of them would say that it simple has to do with a lack of empirical evidence for god. Basically if they can't touch it, taste it, smell it, hear it, or see it they are not going to believe it exists... at least that's what they say and think. In reality most secularists believe in non-empirical things all the time they just don't realize it.

Here are few observations Schizo for whatever they're worth.

Observation one.
Neither of the following statements can be proven.
There is a God.
There is no God.

Observation two.
Consider the following statement.

We are here.

I would say the fact that we are here is about as indisputable as we can get.

Observation four.
I would say that whether there is or isn't a God is quite disputable. In other words it's open to debate.

Certainly, most deists would agree with atheists that we do not see the hand of the supernatural at work in this universe. You are correct when you say it seems to operate by natural laws which we appear to be learning more and more about as we get smarter.

But what can we logically and correctly deduce from the fact that there does not seem to be any supernatural hand at work in this universe.

Atheists conclude, I suppose, that there musn't be a God.
Deists take a different tact, and just accept that the hand of God cannot be seen working in our universe. Period.

But, either way, we are still left with the most basic of questions of why we are here.

In my opinion, and I've commented on this several times before, atheists seem to just take existence for granted. In other words that's their default setting, so to speak.

But I agree with you that it is fair and logical to pose the question: why are we here?

Could God have a hand in it?

Most deists believe he could have had a hand in it, or some variations like Aaron believes that perhaps the universe and God are all evolving together. Some believe the universe is God; and God is the universe. Some believe a variation that the universe is part of God.

But I agree with you Schizo.

When atheists are saying that nothing caused the universe, they are in fact making a positive assertion that they cannot defend, any more than a deist or theist can defend that a God made the universe.

What do you think about this way of looking at it ...

I mean the main difference when you boil it down is that atheists believe there is no purpose or meaning behind creation. There was nothing before the universe. There will be nothing after. SAme withh our lives, there was nothing before, nothing after it. It's a total accident.

I suppose all you have to do to qualify for deism is just accept the possibility that existence might not be an accident.

Aaron said it well. Most Atheists I've encountered are exactly what the term implies: A-theist, meaning they disagree with the Theist definitions of God which usually include a God who micromanages the universe, with a plan for each and every one of us. He knows when we've been bad or good....Oh, wait, that's Santa Claus - I always get the two mixed up!

Just kidding, but it's that easy to mock the theist version of God as something infantile and unrealistic, because Religions had there origins in times when Man's knowledge was primitive. When it comes to Christianity, Judaism and Islam I'm just as atheistic as the Atheists.

Atheism is the opposite extreme from Theism. When a pendulum swings too far to one side, it must swing an equal distance in the opposite direction before eventually settling in the center. I consider Deism to be that center. When I gave up trying to make sense of Christianity, I declared myself an Atheist. But, I didn't stop thinking! Atheism doesn't do any better job of answering the hard questions - in fact it ignores them! IMO, laziness is what makes many people Atheist. It allows them to ignore the questions that some of us can't stop asking, like... If the universe just happened from random chance, why is it so orderly? If the universe adheres to the Laws of Physics, where did they come from?

But most of the Atheists I've encountered had never heard of Deism. Those who have been willing to listen often end up...not quite convinced, but willing to admit that they don't really have a problem with the idea of a First Cause, as long as It doesn't expect to be worshiped. Still, they usually ask me: Why bother to believe in a God if that God doesn't DO ANYTHING! It's easier to just say there is no God.

I've also been told that believing in a First Cause is illogical because of "Infinite regression" - if god caused the Big Bang, what caused the First Cause? But they seem to be capable of accepting that there is no need for a cause, which makes even less sense to me.

Then there are the honest ones, who admit to being Agnostic. This, too allows one to ignore the questions on the basis of the futility of it - that no answers are to be found.

If you are still questioning, you are not an Atheist or an Agnostic.

Paul Anthony wrote:

IMO, laziness is what makes many people Atheist.

I hate to admit it but that has been my experiance too. But I think the same holds true for many Theists as well. There are of course many exceptions; however, most people just opt for the easy answer. And since you can't prove either one absolutely they just pick the one that most appeals to them personally.

Most of them don't even know the tenets of the philosophy they claim alliegence to. Ask most Christians to tell you what the Bible's position on something is and they often get it wrong. Likewise many Atheists who say they hold to a scientific world view don't know the first thing about quantum mechanics or DNA or how the brain works. But they believe it because "thats what science says". They don't even realize that is the same type of argument from authority they criticize Theists for accepting from the church.

I don't know of too many intellectually lazy Deists though. Maybe thats why there are so few of us. It takes effort to be a Deist.

Schizophretard wrote:

Their arguments for the origin of the universe trouble me the most. Like I would ask," Where did the universe come from if not from God?" They would answer," From the big bang." I would respond," Well, I also believe in the big bang but it obviously has a cause and that cause I call God." They would respond," No it doesn't need a cause just like god wouldn't need a cause." I would ask," Well, if you don't believe in God then what happened before the big bang?" They answer," There was no before because at the big bang time started. So, there was no time before the big bang." I ask," But what was the cause of the big bang?" They answer," There was no cause of it. The big bang was the first cause." I ask," How are you so sure that there is no cause of the big bang?" They answer," Because there is no god and this is the most logical explanation."

When Atheists and Theists or Deists discuss ultimate questions they are usually talking past, rather than to, each other. And that's because they are all reasoning from a different set of axioms. Axioms are unproven and probably unprovable "facts" about the world that are taken for granted by the believer. Hence, what seems obvious and unquestionable to one may be incomprehensible to the other.

Atheists are generally materialists, so in their worldview an immaterial entity cannot, and therefore does not, exist. Although you seem to be open-minded about the existence of invisible and intangible things, the Atheist is not. Theists are just as rational as Atheists, but Ts start from the unproven assumption that "there is a God", while As begin their reasoning from the equally questionable premise: "because there is no God".

Since I started out as a Christian, I also took God for granted. But when I became an Agnostic I was forced to open my mind to other alternatives. Yet I was never certain enough of my own grasp on the immensity of reality to completely reject the possibility of a deity of some kind. So now, as a fence-straddling Deist, I lack the fixed fundamental faith of both Theists and Atheists. By that I mean, my axioms are subject to change as my understanding evolves. At the moment, I believe that God is The Necessary Being, but I could be proven wrong.

In the Prove God Exists thread I stated my wishy-washy position as follows:

Consequently, the existence of such a deity must be accepted or rejected as either a self-evident axiom, or as nonsense. Ultimately, according to Gödel's Incompleteness Theorem, God may be a "formally undecidable proposition".

Schizophretard wrote:

Sometimes I hear atheist admit there is a cause to the universe but that cause is a thing called the multiverse. I would ask," What caused the big bang?" They would answer," It came out of the multiverse." I respond," What is the multiverse?" They answer," It is a universe outside of our universe that generates an infinite amount of universes. Each universe has different natural laws and we live in a lucky one that is suitable for life. Our universe appears to be finely tuned for life by an intelligent designer only because we haven't seen the other universes." I ask," Where did the multiverse come from?" They respond," It either came from another multiverse or it is eternal." I respond," This multiverse sounds very complex and if it exists then it seems that it requires a god even more than our universe does." They respond," Not really because our universe doesn't require a god so there is no logical reason to assume that the multiverse does." I ask," How are you so sure this multiverse exists?" They answer,"Because there is no god and this is the most logical explanation."
.

The Multiverse Hypothesis is a sincere, but misguided, attempt to explain the existence of the known universe without admitting the necessity for creation out of nothing. But of course, such materialist theories only postpone the necessity to answer ultimate questions, such as your response above: "where did the matter and energy and physical laws for all those infinite multiverses come from?"

Based on what we know of Entropy and Thermodynamics, it is extremely unlikely that energy and matter could exist eternally, even if we assume the eternal reincarnations of multiverses, or the simultaneous existence of parallel worlds. So Theists and Deists posit the prior existence of something that is eternal and infinite by definition. The problem with that tactic is, as Atheists will quickly point out, you can't define something into existence. But that same argument applies to multiverses . . .so there!

Arguments for or against the existence of God are inherently circular and tautological. That's why Theists and Deists---and Atheists---must eventually concede that it's a matter of faith. Which worldview makes more sense to you : The Eternal Matter assumption, or the Eternal Mind hypothesis?



CREATION VIA BIG BANG HYPOTHESIS

Prior to the 19th century, most western philosophers, and theologians believed that the temporal universe was created by an eternal deity at a certain point in the past, and then continued essentially unchanged, except for the routine cycles of nature. Secular scientists gradually began to question the idea of divine creation, yet they retained the view of an orderly but static world, replacing the eternal creator with an eternal cosmos. Then, Darwin’s theory of evolution introduced the idea of progressive change over long expanses of time. And around the turn of the 20th century, Einstein brought forth the concept of Relativity, which challenged the absolute perfection of Newton’s cycling cosmos, and even Einstein’s own assumption of an eternal, static universe. He even added an arbitrary corrective “constant” to his equations to make his calculations agree with his preconceptions. Later, that same “cosmological constant” was shown to be directly related to the expansion of the universe. Cosmologists eventually traced the observed expansion back to an ultimate temporal and spatial point of origin: the “day without yesterday”. But because of the undesirable theological implications, Einstein and others only grudgingly gave-in to the accumulating evidence that the universe was rapidly expanding. By the turn of the 21st century, the Big Bang Theory was a well-established scientific concept. But the logical necessity for an ultimate origin is still considered unorthodox science; so new work-arounds (multiverses, many worlds, bubble universes, etc) are still being proposed to avoid the necessity of dealing with the philosophical problem of a Time Zero (implying creation ex nihilo) for the universe. Intelligent Evolution is instead an attempt to deal directly with the question of origins, without straying too far from orthodox science, and without bowing to the taboos of traditional religions.

After I posted this topic I read some arguments from atheists about the big bang and I still don't understand how they comprehend their own arguments. I was reading this one guy's article and he explained very well how the big bang proves atheism and is incompatible with theism. His reasoning seemed pretty good on most of his points except his explanation of the cause of the big bang. This guy didn't believe it came from the multiverse and he didn't use the argument that there was no time before the big bang so nothing happened before. Instead he argued that it is not true that something can not come from nothing. He believes the universe truly came from absolutely nothing and that science backs it up. His conclusion was that since science "proves" that something can come from nothing and that the universe did then that "proves" that God doesn't exist. Does this sound just as absurd to all of you as it does to me? I believe it would be easier for water to turn into wine than for nothing to turn into something. Actually I think it sounds like more of a miracle than God creating the universe. He didn't prove anything to me except that he believes in the supernatural more than I do. The next time an atheist asks me,"Where did God come from?" I will say,"He came out of a state of absolute nothingness." If they want me to explain then I will say,"Well nothing turned into God and then he time traveled back into the nothingness. Since God has the power to create something from nothing he turned the nothingness into himself and I can prove this is possible with science."

Schizophretard wrote:

Instead he argued that it is not true that something can not come from nothing. He believes the universe truly came from absolutely nothing and that science backs it up. His conclusion was that since science "proves" that something can come from nothing and that the universe did then that "proves" that God doesn't exist.

First of all, you must understand that your opinion that God can create something from nothing sounds just as absurd to him, as his godless creation ex nihilo does to you.

But when your interlocutor says that "science proves that something can come from nothing", he is probably referring to the expressed opinion of Victor Stenger in his books, NOT BY DESIGN and GOD: THE FAILED HYPOTHESIS. By "nothing" he means, nothing-but-the-laws & symmetries-of-Nature, plus-the-potential-energy-of-the-quantum-vacuum. These non-physical regularities and potentials are made of "something" only in a meta-physical sense, which Stenger does not allow.

As I mentioned in another thread, Stenger is guilty of the logical fallacy of treating "nothing" as a kind of "something". This is a form of Begging the Question, where the something of the conclusion is covertly implied in the original premise. Actually, Deists would be guilty of the same fallacy if they were not upfront about their axiomatic assumptions.

In my own personal creation myth, I assume that in-the-beginning there was nothing-but-the-Void. However, what I mean by the term "Void" is "nothing but meta-physical information" (i.e. order). Another word for that eternal-and-infinite-abyss-of-potential is G*D. So, you see both of us begin with the unproven assumption that "something" meta-physical has always existed. The difference is that I envision that pre-physical "thing" as a Divine Mind, and Stenger views it as abstract laws with no Lawgiver.

Who's right here? In my opinion, G*D should exist, but I don't really know that S/he is. So, as much as I hate to admit it, my opinion is based on faith. Yet, unlike Christian Faith, I am free to change my fundamental beliefs to fit new facts.



THE VOID
In Greek philosophy “Chaos” was a raw, formless, primordial state of the universe, equivalent to the “Abyss” in Jewish cosmology. ~That sea of unformed, fluid potential was envisioned as something like the “plasma” of modern physics, which is a primitive-but-potent state of matter. Some physicists estimate that 99% of the “matter” in the universe is dematerialized plasma. In Thermodynamics, Chaos is equivalent to maximum Entropy. ~The Greek “First Cause”, like a potter shaping clay, imposed order on disorderly Chaos, and fashioned the universe as a suitable container for material beings. ~In IE, Chaos is the term used to designate the infinite potential of Eternity. In its raw state Eternity, which is an attribute of the Creator, has ultimate potential but nothing actual—no forms, no things, just possibilities. The act of creation was essentially a change in the state of mind of the Creator, who (unlike the Greek Demiurge) metaphorically formed the physical Cosmos out of He/r own meta-physical body: proto-plasmic Chaos.


<< Wikipedi - Chaos Theory: Systems that exhibit mathematical chaos are deterministic and thus orderly in some sense; this technical use of the word chaos is at odds with common parlance, which suggests complete disorder. >>

Gnomon,

I don't believe the universe to be created ex nihilo. I would just be saying that to be a smart ass. I believe that God is a divine mind and the mechanism of creation is thinking. We are God's thoughts and even though it seems we began at the big bang I believe that is only from our perspective and from God's point of view we have always been in his mind. He sees the beginning and the end simultaneously.

If He sees the beginning and the end simultaneously and we have always been in His mind, then what was the point? Why not just create spirit beings with memories of being good and virtuous? Free will means freedom to make our choices free from His will. He could rather have put Himself in and created us in a continuous state of ecstatic fulfillment.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

If He sees the beginning and the end simultaneously and we have always been in His mind, then what was the point? Why not just create spirit beings with memories of being good and virtuous? Free will means freedom to make our choices free from His will. He could rather have put Himself in and created us in a continuous state of ecstatic fulfillment.

If G*D is eternal and infinite, then there is no beginning or end---from G*D's perspective---only never-ending boring Being. However, I imagine this universe as a computer simulation which has to run its course in real time. For us avatars on the inside, time and space are Real. But for G*D, who is navel-gazing (looking into He/r own mind), time and space are simply mathematical constructs within the simulation.

So, I conclude that G*D has mentally separated-off a small chunk of eternity/infinity to serve as the container for this little experiment we call Reality. Within this simulated cosmos, even the Creator must wait for the program to work itself out before the end result can be known***.

An old conundrum for medieval monks with too much time on their hands was, could God create a boulder that even God couldn't pick-up? This is an example of a category error. G*D can't pick-up anything, because S/he doesn't have any hands. But I suspect that---like the Red Queen---G*D can imagine the impossible without breaking a sweat. Even a few clever humans can imagine imaginary numbers.

So it should be easy for G*D to create an imaginary series of temporal events that even the Imaginer-in-chief can't foresee the end of. By voluntarily limiting He/r omniscience, S/he leaves us avatars a little room for the free exercise of our own limited wills.

***PS---Remember, anything we humans think or say about G*D is only a metaphor, not The Truth.

Quote :

***PS---Remember, anything we humans think or say about G*D is only a metaphor, not The Truth.

God is Truth.

Well, I think that if God is all knowing then it would be pointless to create the universe because he would just be making a perfect copy of what he already has within. Also, I don't think of God as being in time watching us and wondering what is going to happen. God created the concept of time so time only exists within him. Most people imagine the beginning of the universe as the time God created the universe. I disagree. I imagine the whole story of the creation as being like a book. It has a beginning and an end but the whole book is the creation. So, God didn't create the universe billions of years ago in the past but created the whole "book" in eternity. Also, God creating the universe with thought gives a natural explanation of how God created it instead of just saying,"God did it." Maybe God did create spirit beings with memories of being good and virtuous in another "book". I don't see how this view would effect our free will because it would be the same world even if we were not in his mind.

The Paineful Truth wrote:

Quote :

***PS---Remember, anything we humans think or say about G*D is only a metaphor, not The Truth.

God is Truth.

That may be a true statement, but G*D is a black book with TRUTH written on the cover that we can see as an image on the computer screen but can't read the contents. We can imagine and speculate about the mysterious Truths hidden within that book, but our concepts of absolute Verity are merely analogies and projections drawn from our limited experience in the non-TRUTH world.

Schizophretard wrote:

So, God didn't create the universe billions of years ago in the past but created the whole "book" in eternity.

This is getting off-topic, but to carry the "created in eternity" concept a little farther, I must conclude that Our Creation is not the only mind-spring of an eternal Creator.

The entire span of our universe from Big Bang to Little Fizzle would occupy a timeless deity's mind for only a fraction of an eyeblink. So, the cosmologist's speculations of "Many Worlds", and "Bubble Universes" and "Multiverses" may very well be true. Instead of us being the Chosen Ones, we could be a big jar of jelly-bean-worlds that the World-Maker can sample at her leisure for ever and ever. She might even spit-out the yukky black beans. But until we get our hands on that black book of Truth, we'll never know for sure. And I prefer to think that we are He/r favorite flavor.

Ouch! I get a headache just trying to wrap my miniscule mind around the concept of a bottomless jar of jelly beans.

I like Neale Donald Walsch's explanation in Conversations with God.

(It's been a few years since I read it, so I'm paraphrasing).

God knows everything at once, but to fully understand everything, there must be contrasting perspectives. We could not comprehend darkness if it was always light! Or cold, if it were always warm. So, God divided his mind into many minds, in order to view things one way at a time.

It is the difference between knowing and experiencing.

Quote :

God knows everything at once,

Yeah I can't wrap myself around any concept of God knowing what we're going to do. The future must be a mystery.

Otherwise it would make a mockery of free will and all that goes with it, most notably responsibility.

Helium,

Why can't you get around it? The universe is a mystery to the rest of us so it all seems fine to me. If God doesn't know everything and is learning everything in time like we are then he isn't a panendeistic god because if all of him is in time then all of him is in the universe. That sounds like a pandeistic god to me. How does the knowledge of God make a mockery of freewill? I think that God learning and being in time makes a mockery of God.

Yeah, schitzo, I am actually not a panendeist.

I'm just here because Aaron runs a super site and puts up with me.

On the other hand, I just view these concepts more as metaphor than science, so it's not that I actually disagree with panendeism particularly.

My own metaphor is perhaps more traditional more conservative, still borrowing greatly from the Christian roots of my ma and pa, god rest their souls, but infused with the subsequent logic that is generated by a non-intervening God.

I prefer to shy away from all models in which we are not completely responsibile for everything we do (like a good LIbertarian). I think taking away free will is one such act that takes away responsibility. For instance it implies that anyone who ever did anything hurtful had no choice.

And the other thing of course is panendeists are deists, when all is said and done, so I'm quite interested and comfortable fitting in with most of the topics.

Helium,

I never said my model keeps you from being completely responsible for everything you do or keeps you from having freewill. I'm just saying you can have just as much freewill as you believe you have rather or not God knows everything. God knowing your choices doesn't cause them. No one can cause anything with their knowledge. It's what is done with that knowledge. If God knows the choices you're going to make but doesn't choose them for you then you still have freewill. Why must your future be a mystery to God? Why must he be limited in such away?

I didn't realize that you're not a panendeist. Die heathen! Just kidding! I'm pretty sure I'm a panendeist but even though I see the universe as being part of God/within God I think my view of God is mostly a traditional deist view.

Paul,

What you said about contrasting perspectives is almost words out of my own mouth if I'm understanding it correctly. I believe God to be unchangeable and in his state it is like he is frozen in time. He knows everything, he is thinking it all at once, and he is only thinking one thought that is so complex that it contains all knowledge. He experiences time through us and in away lives through us. He knows everything about us and can never be surprised. We don't know everything and are always surprised because we never know what the future holds. He experiences our surprises in a selfless way. It's like how you know what you're going to give your child for Christmas but your child doesn't. So, you feel the joy of the surprise through your child when they open it. I like looking at it this way and it makes perfect sense to me. God knowing my future doesn't make me uncomfortable and I don't believe it effects my freewill. Whenever I wish I knew what's in my future and wish God would tell me it is like he is saying to me,"Sorry no hints(prophesies). You'll just have to wait for Christmas(the future). Don't you think that if I told you it would take away the point of you opening your presents(making your future)?"

Paineful,

Yes, God is Truth. I read a preview of that book you keep posting. Very interesting.

Truth Bless You!

Yeah schitzo when it comes down to God knowing our choice and us having free will, I suppose it could be done. But it begets lots of delicious philosophical questions (but then again don't most concepts).

It would entail a delicious catch-22. That is God knowing exactly what we're going to do. And yet, our decisions were still free will, requiring us to excercise judgement and responsibility for our decisions.

So one could then ask, well, why would God make us go through the charade. And perhaps the answer would be because we actually have to live it to learn it.

An example, I suppose, would be a parent knowing that a child was going to make a mistake (albeit a small one that wouldn't harm the child, but would definitely aid his learning) precisely so the child could find out for himself.

I think an even better model that someone else mentioned at some point that fits that situation is not a God that would know exactly what we're going to do. But a God that simply knows all possibilities of the how the universe could turn out. Man that would be one super computer.

The other option is that God doesn't know how his sentient life forms will turn out any more than we know our own children will turn out.

Actually the underlying anchor of free will, and the implications of free will, I believe are more important than the particular metaphor.

Helium wrote:

Yeah schitzo when it comes down to God knowing our choice and us having free will, I suppose it could be done. But it begets lots of delicious philosophical questions (but then again don't most concepts).


I think an even better model that someone else mentioned at some point that fits that situation is not a God that would know exactly what we're going to do. But a God that simply knows all possibilities of the how the universe could turn out. Man that would be one super computer.

Those "delicious philosophical questions" give my Freewill something "chewy, cheesey, crunchy, and melty" to gnaw on. Hence, one way of viewing the Predestination/Freewill paradox is to divide G*D into two conceptual categories. If G*D is Eternal and Infinite, then G*D is All, and there is nothing that is not G*D. And that includes us. From that perspective G*D is simultaneously eternal/infinite/omniscient, and temporal/finite/ignorant. Long story short: G*D lives in two worlds---the boring, unchanging realm of eternity, and the exciting, unpredictable realm of reality. Therefore, when G*D is seeing the world thru your eyes, the future is a big blank. Hey---it's just a theory.


Another way to account for the apparent contradiction is to assume that G*D deliberately included unpredictable "possibilities" in the creation simply by randomizing Reality. Presumably, even an omniscient Being can't predict the inherently, logically unpredictable. So the universe is predestined only in the sense that mathematical Probability is predictable.

The Law of Large Numbers says that as the number of individual events approaches infinity, the probable outcome of that sequence of events approaches certainty. Thus, on the universal scale the destination of this world is 100% predictable by an omniscient Being; but on the individual scale it's all a big mystery for ignorant creatures like us. That way, G*D can have it both ways: Predestination and Freewill. Hey---it's just a paradox.

I think of us as being composed of "God". If God created the universe, what did he use for building materials? If, before the Big Bang, nothing existed except God, then God IS the energy and matter which makes up everything in the universe. So, we are all parts of God.

I am not a human being, having a spiritual experience.
I am a spiritual being, having a human experience.

And perhaps God finds it amusing.