Do we have free will? Does God?
Don Quixote on Nov 28 2010 at 9:14 am | Filed under: Uncategorized
One reason I ceased to believe in God was that I was taught as I was growing up that God knew everything there was to know — past, present and future. This necessarily meant that the future could currently be known with certainty. Thus, every apparent exercise of free will was illusory. I might feel like I am choosing option A over option B but, in fact, God already knew I was going to choose option A and I was not at liberty to choose option B in defiance of what God already knew would happen. Despite appearances, I did not have free will.
For that matter, neither did God. Can you imagine what it would be like to know with absolute certainty everything you were going to do for all eternity? How boring and pointless to travel a predetermined path, especially one you know about in advance! How boring to know everything about the future already and to never learn anything new! I almost felt sorry for God.
In the end, I could not accept that neither I nor God had any free will at all.
This comes to mind now for two reasons. A commenter a couple of days ago commented on someone he knew who swore we had no free will, but acted every moment as if he believed he had free will. The day before that, I visited the web site of a small religious group/school that a cousin of mine is now associated with. The group had an extensive mission statement that asserted that we have free will and that God knows everything that will happen in the future, without making any attempt to reconcile the two and without even acknowledging that the two are inconsistent.
Anyway, on this Sunday it seems reasonable to ask those of you who do believe in God, and especially those of you who believe in both God’s knowledge of the future and man’s free will — how do you reconcile the two beliefs? The only answer I ever got when I was young and searching for answers was that some things are beyond our understanding, an answer which was always highly unsatisfactory to me.
While I’m at it, two other quick questions about God. First, if God is perfect, why did he create human beings (supposedly in his likeness) who are imperfect? Why would perfection create imperfection, or even the possibility of imperfection? If it is our fault that we chose a path of imperfection (eating the apple, as it were), why was God angry? He already knew what we would do when he created us. Why did he create us to make the worng decision, not the right one?
Second, we are constantly criticizing liberals for making their case based on emotions and belief, rather than cold hard facts. Isn’t that what believers in God do? Isn’t it ironic that conservatives who trust in fact-based arguments in this world are more likely to believe in a non-fact-based God than liberals, who trust to their emotions and beliefs in this world but reject a belief in God as not supported by the facts? Where are the cold hard facts supporting the existence of God? Isn’t the fact that even believers have such trouble agreeing on who/what God is compelling evidence that man created God and not the other way around?
As always, thanks in advance for your comments and I hope I have not offended anyone with these ruminations. If so, I apologize. Please know I am seeking, not criticizing.
Email This Post To A Friend
77 Responses to “Do we have free will? Does God?”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Dear Don, These are all questions i have pondered in my life too. I do know now that I have no free will – He is the one that draws me to him in his own way. I don’t know why he does it but I know he does. And I can’t prove it to anyone else – everyone must travel their own path.
This is a difficult subject to articulate because so many “Christians” are intent upon trying to save other people and often their approach turns people off. But none of us can save anyone, because we aren’t God. By trying to “choose” the right thing to do or the right thing to believe in, we are trying to be God. The Tree in the Garden that Eve ate from was NOT the Tree of Life – it was the Tree of the KNOWLEDGE of Good and Evil. KNOWLEDGE – intellect – trying to figure everything out.
The only way I know to truly “KNOW” (not figuring out) is to be still and wonder.
NancyB
Huge questions that human beings have been pondering since the beginning of time, DQ. No apologies are ever necessary in asking such questions.
Let me the first to say that much that is in Christianity appears contradictory and counterintuitive, but only from our limited perspectives. How does a good God permit “pain and suffering”, for example. It seems counterintuitive but abler people than myself, such as C.S. Lewis helped me understand that to my satisfaction (“The Problem of Pain” by C.S. Lewis).
How much free will do we have? I don’t think that it is contradictory to say that God has a plan but we all have free will in how we direct ourselves within that plan. A real estate developer may have a plan for a community but the residents of that community still have considerable free will in how they will arrange their homes within that plan. I certainly have free will: I am free to reject Him or to accept Him as my Creator. Moreover, I am also free to renounce much of my free will when I accept him as my Lord, Guide and Supreme Being far above anything I could ever hope to attain, an acceptance of humility of which I think many people (secular humanists /narcissists) are incapable. I fully accept that I am a very fallible “work-in-progress” and that God will throw painful challenges my way to help me become a better person.
With regard to “logic”? Logic can dictate that A + B = C but this is only useful if we know A and B. And that’s the rub for me: we are creatures full of fallibility and ignorance. I posit that we do not have the ability to understand A and B. Just one example, physicists and mathematicians have posited the existence of at-least 13 and possibly 25 dimensions of existence, yet we frail human beings can only experience maybe 3-1/2 dimensions (we can only experience time in the present). It is like asking a color-blind dog to understand the color-coded circuitry of a high-speed computer network.
I am OK with accepting that God and Creation are far, far greater than I can ever hope to comprehend. Which brings us to faith. My own Christian faith is based upon a very complex journey of deduction and revelation upon which I embarked a long time ago as a young man. I was one who challenged God’s existence and the Bible’s credibility. Eventually, I ran out of questions and experienced things that science and logic could never explain. ’nuff said.
I would propose, however, that as you look around yourself and admire (as I know you do) the sheer complexity of our existence, that it takes as much if not more faith to conclude that it was all a random accident and that the faith of humans in a greater being evident since the beginning of recorded history (evidence the Cro-Magnon and Neanderthal burial sites) is all a grand delusion or hoax, than it takes to believe that it is all part of a creative design (which implies a designer).
My recently deceased father was a militant secular humanist, a scientist and engineer who lived in the mind, convinced that science was the tool from which the blueprint of existence would be discerned. In his last living days, he made peace with his Creator. One of his last comments to me, when he knew he was confronting something oh so much bigger than he could ever comprehend, was, “isn’t Creation amazing?”.
But these are just my thoughts, since you asked.
Thanks, Nancy and Danny. Danny, as to your point about it taking a huge amount of “faith” to believe that all of this complex universe was accidental, perhaps you are right. But it doesn’t solve the problem to posit a hypothetical creator or master planner who is more improbable, more complex and more extraordinary than even an accidental universal. Rather than solving the problem of complexity, hypothesizing a creator adds a new level of complexity to it.
Also, I’m not sure how your comments on free will deal with the question of how we can truly have an ability to choose if God already knows how we are going to choose before we do it. The community planner analogy is inapt, because the planner does not know for certainty how the plan will turn out. The way I was taught, God does know, with 100% certainty. To accept that we have free will (to accept or reject God, for example) is to argue that God does not know which way we are going to choose. He couldn’t, since it hasn’t been decided until we make the choice.
Predestination of the Calvinist bend is only one interpretation of free will in the context of God, DQ. It is not, by all, even considered orthodox by most Christian theologians.
To accept that we have free will (to accept or reject God, for example) is to argue that God does not know which way we are going to choose. He couldn’t, since it hasn’t been decided until we make the choice.
The quantum mechanics explanation is that for God to be omniscient, he has to know, essentially, all the choices in all the universes that you could or would have chosen.
Thus God can both know exactly what your choice is and also not know which choice you have made until you have made it and collapsed the wave front into 100% probability.
One of the great conundrums. I wrote a whole long thing here and then erased it – what’s the point? It would only be a source of annoyance to some. But “what’s the point” remains a very large question. It was known the apple would be eaten, so why even create the apple? Expecting a different result? There’s no possibility of that, so what’s the point? The race proved itself unendurable, so the decision was made to drown them all – except Noah and progeny. So they could breed, repopulate, and… become unendurable again? Is it a surprise that the race is once again unendurable? No, it was known from before the first raindrop fell, so… what’s the point? It certainly couldn’t have been a surprise when Lucifer took a third of the work-force out for better pay and a share of management, so why are they being punished for behaving as it was known they’d behave? What’s the point? That’s enough.
“. . .it doesn’t solve the problem to posit a hypothetical creator or master planner who is more improbable, more complex and more extraordinary than even an accidental universal.”
I’m not sure, as Danny has pointed out, that the human mind is equipped to solve the problem posed. It is certainly not equipped to determine how an infinite mind is “more improbable, more complex and more extraordinary” than the “explanation” that a supposedly accidental universe seems to offer.
By what measure is it more improbable, etc? What is an “accidental universe?” How does such a universe not violate the principle that a thing cannot cause itself? Isn’t that the height of improbability?
I realize there’s the question, “Then how does God come to be?” One answer is that we cannot reason ourselves past the idea of either an essential being or an uncaused entity. If, as the Hindus say, the universe itself is infinitely old, it obviously has no cause. It cannot not be, therefore was not caused. If there is a god “outside” the universe that caused its existence, it’s the same argument: At some point, no matter how many gods you posit that have created successor gods, you finally come to an essential being, one that cannot not be.
Does this essential being have foreknowledge of our actions? Perhaps. To me the question of the essential being’s (God’s) existence and free will are separate questions.
I think that one temptation in dismissing God is to equate His intelligence and being with ours. Saying that one can only imagine endless boredom from knowing all that will ever happen only tells us about the limitations of one’s human mind. I don’t know enough to vouch that God’s mind is exactly like ours, with the same need for uncertainty and novelty, but I will venture to say that perhaps God does not exist in time or mind as only an enlarged version of ourselves.
jj, as a non-believer, I ask myself that question every day. I’m convinced that man created God because he could not answer that question, “What’s the point” without him. It does not follow that God exists, however.
Charles, I agree, but a God that is so distant is hardly the Christian God, who is very personal and caring. Even if we accept that there is some ultimate cause, outside of time and mind, what meaning does that add to our lives?
Y-man, the quantum mechanics version leads to parallel universes in which all things have happened. Nevertheless, if things do eventually collapse into 100% probability, then God, as I was taught, would already know the result of the collapse. You are right about Calvinism, but I was raised in a Presbyterian church that was strongly influenced by Calvinist beliefs, so I heard lots of Calvinist teachings in Sunday School and Church.
Danny, I was very touched by your post about your father’s words, “isn’t Creation amazing”. I am sure the thought passed his mind the day you were born, too.
For me, it’s not so much about free will in the big picture, but G-d’s will. We were given the basics, The Ten Commandments and we have the free will to obey or ignore them.
It may be an over simplification for many, but it sure makes the day to day a lot easier for me.
I always thought the atheist disallowed free will and apparently I’m correct, although not in the way I assumed.
Since we are only the subset of our chemistry, all thoughts, desires and actions are merely a product of that chemistry. Free will is therefore an illusion.
I never thought the atheist would disallow free will for the Creator, because his knowledge was somehow determinant (or am I missing something?)
I’m sitting on the couch deciding whether to get up and have another cup of coffee or take a nap. I assume you’re willing to give me that choice, but not to the extent that it is free will.
Having just read your latest post, I see your problem is with Calvin and much of Romans.
You’re question, Why did God create us like he did knowing we would sin?, in my mind answers the question of free will. Because God gave us the ability to act against his nature, it could only come as a choice. The fact that that the choice would inevitably be against his will, doesn’t diminish the choice.
All of this was created, in my opinion, to demonstrate what love is. Let’s say that we had never sinned and God showered us with gift after gift and he told us he was doing it because he loved us. What is the frame of reference to understand love.
Love can only be understood in the context of sacrifice. It is a conscious decision to put someone’s interests ahead of our own.
The Bible tells us that God demonstrated his love, in that while we were undeserving, Christ died for us. There is no greater example of love than this and from this we gain the knowledge that we too can love– never as completely as Christ, but certainly his love is the example we should follow.
Having been raised in a staunchly Calvinist home, I’ve struggled with the misunderstanding that Calvinism can produce.
BrianE…says…
Your question, “Why did God create us like he did knowing we would sin?”, in my mind answers the question of free will. Because God gave us the ability to act against his nature, it could only come as a choice. The fact that that the choice would inevitably be against his will, doesn’t diminish the choice.
DQ: The greatest command in the New Testament is to “love God above all else”. God, in short, created us and wanted us to love him. At minimum, I would think a “thank you” is in order, but I recognize that these two words are very difficult for many people to utter.
As a husband, would you rather that your wife was forced to “love you” by her parents or that she fell in love with you of her own free will?
SADIE, I agree with you. I really don’t believe that it was ever meant to be very complicated for us. We just make it so.
Danny, the very first post (NancyB) really does say it nicely. I’d only add – to be amazed.
The only way I know to truly “KNOW” (not figuring out) is to be still and wonder.
So many events in life that confound and trouble us, that we rarely just stop, stare and take in all the lovely. I have a beautiful view of the sky as the sun sets (NW exposure) no obstructions above, lots of distractions below. The view of the sky or life is only where you rest your eyes.
Unfortunately, many people including many Christians, do not understand that that God created time. God is not inside of time. Therefore he can know everything without necessarily causing it to happen. This is like what we do when we look at the chapter select on a DVD we can see all the different parts of the movie at once with equal clarity. God’s view is even more clear. God can intervene and make things happen if he chooses, he is God. Knowing what someone will do is not the same as causing it to happen. The reason God gave humans free will is because true love cannot exist without freedom. Sex without freedom is rape. If you were placed in a beautiful mansion with all of your physical needs met but you could not leave it, the beautiful, comfortable house, would be a beautiful prison cell. God is perfect but created angels and humans with the ability to choose to obey or not, to love or not. Some angels made the wrong choice and became demons. Humans made the wrong choice but God did not just leave it at that. He became flesh, took on the form of a baby, lived a perfect life, and died for us. Even with all that, Jesus does not force us to believe in Him because he loves us and he wants us to love Him. When a man loves a woman, he will go to extremes to win her love, but if he captures her by force, that is a crime. In the end, those who choose to love Jesus will go to heaven, those who do not will be eternally separated from Him in hell. The Bible teaches that believers become the “Bride of Christ” in some sense, wouldn’t forcing unbelievers to go to heaven, against their will be kind of like a forced marriage? God is not a kidnapper. He knows all, he does not necessarily have to cause things to happen unless he decides to intervene. But, he is patient and loves us enough to allow us the freedom to reject him, because love cannot exist without freedom.
/* Style Definitions */
table.MsoNormalTable
{mso-style-name:”Table Normal”;
mso-tstyle-rowband-size:0;
mso-tstyle-colband-size:0;
mso-style-noshow:yes;
mso-style-priority:99;
mso-style-qformat:yes;
mso-style-parent:”";
mso-padding-alt:0in 5.4pt 0in 5.4pt;
mso-para-margin-top:0in;
mso-para-margin-right:0in;
mso-para-margin-bottom:10.0pt;
mso-para-margin-left:0in;
line-height:115%;
mso-pagination:widow-orphan;
font-size:11.0pt;
font-family:”Calibri”,”sans-serif”;
mso-ascii-font-family:Calibri;
mso-ascii-theme-font:minor-latin;
mso-fareast-font-family:”Times New Roman”;
mso-fareast-theme-font:minor-fareast;
mso-hansi-font-family:Calibri;
mso-hansi-theme-font:minor-latin;}
“To accept that we have free will (to accept or reject God, for example) is to argue that God does not know which way we are going to choose. He couldn’t, since it hasn’t been decided until we make the choice.”
I believe this is a classic example of Question Begging. No offence intended.
If according to Judeo-Christian thinking:
G-d knows everything.
G-d created everything; time, space, matter and energy, everything that exists.
G-d exists separate and distinct from his creation.
G-d is an intelligent, self aware, person/being/whatever.
G-d has your ultimate best interest at hart.
Speculation:
G-d exists outside of space & time. For example, G-d was not there the day you were born, G-d IS THERE the day you were born, and G-d IS THERE the day you will die.
What we are going to do, is in our future, it is NOT in G-d’s future.
Just because G-d knows “What we are going to do” do’s not stop you from doing whatever the heck you want.
–Richard
Psalm 61 Lead me to the rock that is higher than I.
C. S. Lewis covered this nicely in Mere Christianity: We can make any choice that it is possible for us to make. God, in His omniscience, knows what will proceed from each choice even though he leaves it up to us to make the choice. If we have the choice of A or B, God knows already that if we choose A, X, Y, and Z will result. He further knows that if we choose B, then L, M, N, O, and P will result.
Further, God may know what we will choose but that doesn’t mean we aren’t doing the choosing. If you know that your wife’s favorite color is red and you show her a sweater that comes in red and in a really heinous shade of green, you know she will choose red but you are not making the decision for her.
God exists outside of time. I think most of the problem that people have with this lie in limiting God to our space-time continuum. Since we are not set up to think outside of our four-dimensional world, we are not equipped to understand fully how God can know what we are going to do while we are still making the decision to do it.
This question of free will is dicier than I thought.
On one hand, Quixote says it can’t really exist if the personal, omnipotent Christian god exists because, apparently, knowing what somebody will do is the same as making him do it.
For the sake of argument, I’ll accept the claim that a creator’s omniscience negates any exercise of free will by its creations.
If we eliminate God and resort to Quixote’s preferred alternative of an “accidental” universe, we’re still without free will. A universe that causes itself to exist by just popping up out of nothing is just that—an accident. It has no purpose, no meaning, no goal, no “point,” as both jj and Quixote would say. Whatever we do as the accidental outcomes of random processes makes us delusional robots if we think it is the result of free will or can generate meaning.
In other words, we are “destined” to make the (non) choices that we do because that’s how the universe has randomly configured us. I am destined to believe in the Christian god; jj and Quixote aren’t. The “decision” to believe or not believe in that god is not a result of free will, it’s the outcome of the blind processes that make us, respectively, believer/non believers no matter what we “think” about the matter.
You can understand how distressing this is to me. I enjoy the hell out of all the commentators here, but the realization that none of them has any free will makes their statements less entertaining. Knowing that Sadie has no real power over her punning, or that Quixote cannot possibly do anything but disbelieve is kind of a bummer for me.
But, then, the accidental universe randomly spit me that way. I am destined to be disappointed.
Yes, Charles and destined to hear another pun because I do not have a free will – the lawyer insisted on payment ;
When we go to B&R (31 flavors), I *know* what flavor my wife will choose — Jamoca Almond Fudge. That said, I have nothing to do with her choice. It may be that God’s foreknowledge of my choices is of this nature.
On the other hand, the fact that God is outside of time offers another possibility – think of flying a small plane or chopper above the freeway, and watching a car pull out to pass, late on a long uphill, while just over the crest someone is racing in the opposite direction. You *know* that a crash is going to happen, although you have/had zero influence on the choices made that will produce it.
No analogy is perfect, and no human being is going to “comprehend” G*d or His ways….I’m OK with labeling this stuff “a mystery”, once I’ve exhausted my puny attempts at explaining it.
That’s where my non-theist friends will try to tell me that they stand for rationality and that “mystery” is just not in it for them…..whereupon I laugh! The Big Bang? If God didn’t set it up to get things started, please explain how it did get going……everything perfectly set up so that you and I would result and have this conversation? How? Pure chance? Or, to be more mundane…please explain your love your for your wife, or even more difficult, her love for you…… Go ahead…explain.
So, I say…..*you* are criticizing *me* for invoking “mystery”?
Right. Truth is – we ALL must invoke something similar in these and many other instances, because it’s all quite beyond us.
There’s an update on the big bang. Can’t quite recall what the details were, but it was recent.
As for why G*d created human beings that would sin, when He knew that it would happen….what if you could have programmed your wife (and then your kids) to do whatever it was you wanted….? I mean to love you, to show her love in this or that way that you prefer, to never look at anyone else, to always speak sweetly and do what you wanted, etc. etc. etc.
Interested?
Not if you’re normal at all. Who that is healthy would want an automaton as a spouse or child? What is that kind of “love” worth? Christians mostly believe that G*d created free moral agents because He was interested in the companionship and love of human beings made in His image.
Yes, He did know that it would go bad….but that only meant that He laid plans for our redemption, so that those who exercised free will to accept His gracious offer to pay the penalty for our sins and accept us back into fellowship would be free to rejoin Him at some point.
This is, obviously, another mystery…..but my faith in those parts of the story not subject to verification is based on a certain amount of empirical evidence that supports Biblical teaching. None of this can be made “compelling” – the Bible itself says that “spiritual things are spiritually discerned”….I believe that the Spirit prompts folks at the time of His choosing, and they can respond or not….He’ll be back. The role of Christians is to be G*d’s witnesses and examples of the value of having a relationship with Him. Sadly, being human beings, we’re not all that good at it much of the time – but convincing people isn’t *our* job….it’s the Spirit’s.
These aren’t the sorts of things best addressed in the comments of a blog – it would be lots better to do it over a long spell at the coffee shop, or around the dinner table for a couple of hours or more……like we used to do when I was growing up in Ukiah, or my kids were growing up in Angwin!
Ymarsakar – the theory that there was more than one single big bang?
http://www.upi.com/Science_News/2010/11/26/Scientist-Big-Bang-not-the-first-birth/UPI-43401290815294/
Don – man created him for the obvious reason: to cover the things he couldn’t understand. Thing #1 is – and has always been, and will probably always be – death. It’s not explicable, reasonable, or fair, thus it becomes the province of the ‘higher power’ - who is also not explicable, reasonable, or fair. A creation to try to bring order to a fundamentally disorderly situation.
Y-man, the quantum mechanics version leads to parallel universes in which all things have happened. Nevertheless, if things do eventually collapse into 100% probability, then God, as I was taught, would already know the result of the collapse.
Why would it matter if God knew about it or not? Knowing is not causation. Or rather, knowing it for one universe, simply causes that universe to be real. But that’s only a limitation if you can only “know” one universe or observer one universe. You, the DQ now, can only know what you have done. You cannot know what some other DQ has done or what came as a result of it. However, omniscience surpasses that little limitation.
It does not particularly affect anyone, regardless of where or when they exist, for God to know of their decisions and future consequences.
Thing #1 is – and has always been, and will probably always be – death. It’s not explicable, reasonable, or fair, thus it becomes the province of the ‘higher power’ - who is also not explicable, reasonable, or fair.
Not explicable? Entropy takes its toll on bodies.
Not reasonable? By what measure? How is it not “reasonable?” What would be reasonable?
Not fair? Again, by what measure? How is it not “fair” if everybody undergoes it?
I just don’t understand blanket statements about things that invariably appeal to some standard that simply cannot exist in an accidental universe. What is the origin of this “fairness” concept? Or “reasonableness?”
A creation to try to bring order to a fundamentally disorderly situation.
“Disorderly” by what standard? Why would the end result of a disorderly process—a human being—want to bring order to the very process that created it? How does that happen?
‘Isn’t it ironic that conservatives who trust in fact-based arguments in this world are more likely to believe in a non-fact-based God than liberals, who trust to their emotions and beliefs in this world but reject a belief in God as not supported by the facts? Where are the cold hard facts supporting the existence of God?”
DQ, belief in God is certainly rational and fact based. What do you mean by “non-fact-based God”?
God rationally explains first causes. Explain to me how the universe came into being. If in fact the entire energy of the universe was contained at one point, how did it escape it’s own density? Just the cold hard facts.
What distinguishes the singularity of the big bang with that of a black hole? Is the big bang even still the current explanation of the origins of the universe?
Did aliens seed earth as Dawkins speculates?
No, I don’t think that human kind created God. In the O.T., the gods created by humans have form and substance and are maleable and the worshipper manipulates them in one way or another to grant favors – crops, fertility, etc. They come in every form from insects and frogs to the golden calf. There were hundreds of them in Old Testament times. And there are just as many today.
God Almighty, creator of heaven and Earth, first demands that no image be made or worshipped, but He asks to be worshipped in spirit and in truth. The only perfect representation of God is Jesus Christ. God took on humanity to save humanity. I love the lines penned by George Herbert, especially at Christmas: ‘The God of pow’r, as He did ride in His majestik robes of glorie, resolv’d to light. And so one day He did descend, undressing all the way.’
If anyone has ever watched a family cat, or dog, chasing its tail you have an apt analogy to humans trying to cope with these mysteries. It may be entertaining, but we are unlikely to reach a resolution. And if we could, it might be too painful to contemplate.
I personally believe that the great preponderance of people demonstrate their belief in “free will” by their actions. In some cases they do not realize they are doing so, and would probably deny the fact.
I accept C.S. Lewis’ limitation as described by Tonstaple. In other words, I do not believe that our future is strictly predestined. I believe that within some limitations, our actions are determinate. On the other hand, some choices are beyond us, and I frankly do not know if those are decided, or whether some outcomes are left to chance.
To bring it close to home. During 40+ years of flying, I never doubted that my own carelessness or negligence would kill me. So would the same failings on the part of others on whom I depended. I was firmly convinced that training, knowledge, and attention to detail all stacked the deck in my favor. I was also aware that events beyond my control could determine my future. But, usually it would take some human action to stack the deck against me. In such an instance I would no doubt resort to that most plaintive of all laments; “Why me?”. Chance or pre-determination? Over the years, I participated in a number of accident investigations. In most cases we found the human mistakes that, usually of a compound nature, were the root cause. On occasion, we shrugged and informally called it an “Act of God”. Never officially; not an acceptable explanation.
A little off of my theme; but it would be interesting to explore an Atheist’s beliefs in some depth. To reach their philosophical state, it seem that they must accept that we are just a mixture of chemicals and electrical impulses. There cannot be a spiritual component, because you cannot measure or observe such a phenomenon. But, what then motivates original thought, as opposed to reacting to stimuli? Are we at all responsible for our actions; or our actions just a function of individual wiring and chemical balances–or imbalances? On the other hand if we make choices based on some ethical imprint, then where did the imprint originate? Or, if choices are a result of reasoning; then how do they explain this mysterious ability? I don’t know that you can. I suppose they would postulate that we really no more than advanced computers with highly developed artficial intelligence? But, who designed these wonderful computers? Who programmed those unique human traits such as love, empathy, and yes, hate? Do you just accept some things on faith? Oh, wait. Atheism is simply too complex for me to understand.
“This necessarily meant that the future could currently be known with certainty. Thus, every apparent exercise of free will was illusory. I might feel like I am choosing option A over option B but, in fact, God already knew I was going to choose option A and I was not at liberty to choose option B in defiance of what God already knew would happen”
As has already been pointed out, I think you’ve made a mistake in describing the God of the Bible. It is continuously pointed out that humans made made choices in defiance of God’s will. Foreknowledge is not the same as inevitability. Even though God knows you will change your mind and choose B for no other reason than defiance doesn’t change the significance of the choice to you. Anything else would be just semantics.
You certainly can’t object to the notion that God exists outside our observable dimensions. The other dimensions described in Quantum Physics are where God exists, free to move in and out of the dimensions. In fact, suppose God’s movement causes the seeming irrationality of the world. It’s only irrational given our inability to ever know the mind of God. God may just be messing with us.
Silly speculation on my part, but God has given us the freedom to speculate. Given your premise of inevitability though, thought may be the realm of reality where free will truly exists. Assuming that thoughts are even real.
I’m a bit troubled by the thought that to not believe in God one must necessarily believe in an accidental universe with all the baggage that the commenters here seem to ascribe to that. The truth is, I have no idea how the universe came to be and how life, intelligence and self-awareness arose. Perhaps there is a creative force that itself is not sentient or that is so beyond our understanding as to be meaningless (“sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic”). Perhaps there is a God who cares about us or perhaps, much more likely, given that he hasn’t shown up in 1900 years, he doesn’t. Perhaps, as Brian says, “God may just be messing with us.”
Brian, you commented that God rationally explains first causes. So does a creative force that has none of the qualities we normally associate with God. Several of you have commented that I would not want to force my wife to love me, and that is certainly true. But I would certainly woo her because I love her, and not with a 1900 year old book, however wonderful the stories it contains. I would not wrap myself in mystery and make myself unavailable to her. It is not a matter of God being too majestic for us to see or envision. Theoretically, God has proven that he can present himself as a man (Jesus) and walk among us. Yet he hides.
When I write or say things like the last paragraph I am roundly criticized for demanding proofs of God. My first answer is that we require proofs of everything else in life. That’s what our whole debate with liberals is about; the proof that socialism doesn’t work is all on our side. Why is God different? Why shouldn’t we demand proof of something so profoundly important as God’s love? My second answer is that it is not so much that I am demanding proof as that I would expect the loving, caring God who wants us to believe in him, to love him and to be saved by him to make it easier for us to do so — he would woo us. The fact that he does not do so, certainly not in any physical sense, is powerful evidence that either he does not exist or he does not care. The absense of evidence is evidence.
As for free will, I have no idea if I have free will, but it certainly feels like I do. I have no more evidence for this than believers have for God. But it is certainly consistent with the observable universe that time flows only in one direction, that the future is not only unknown but also unknowable — because it has not happened yet and nothing that we are aware of sits outside of time. If the future is truly unknowable, and if it certainly feels like I have free will to make choices, perhaps I do.
Anyway, I appreciate the time and effort the commenters have taken here. But most of the answers came back to “some things are beyond our understanding” as I put it in the original post. And, in the end, that answer does’t work for me. Again, I am imposing my own little human limitations and expectations on God, but if he is all I was taught he is, he could certainly present himself in a way we could all understand. He certainly wouldn’t play hide-and-seek with us.
I am imposing my own little human limitations and expectations on God…
Quite a mouthful, DQ. Who knows maybe it’s quite the opposite and it is you that are playing hide and seek by looking for the tangible. There are some things in life and death that cannot be seen.
i just listened to this last week. If you want a Jewish perspective
Fate vs. Free Will
# KY 903
by Kirzner ztl, Rabbi Yitzchak
Striving for one big goal after the next which comes to naught can feel as though life is laughing at us – to the point of wondering if we have free will at all. On the other hand the entire system of reward and punishment points clearly to our power to make meaningful choices in life. A well consturcted class on where our free will ends, and where God’s will begins.
http://www.aishaudio.com
Boy! Check out for a day and see what you miss!
>>Again, I am imposing my own little human limitations and expectations on God>>
Exactly. It seems to me that the big problem is that there are two Gods in a sense – the immense-beyond-understanding God who is the only reasonable explanation for the creation of the world we live in, and the personal God – who cares about us individually, and cares about the choices we make. It’s not too difficult to believe in the immense God, but then the immensity is so great and incomprehensible that it’s almost impossible to believe that it could make any difference whatsoever what we do or don’t do. What do you know about the ants you step on when you walk down the street?? For some people, the personal God is the belief that is easier to accept or reject. Jesus becomes something of a super human – the one who walks on water literally. If you accept that there ever was such a person, why would you _not_ follow him? But then – how can such a man exist if there is not this immense God – and why should He care?
To be honest DQ, I’ve simply given up trying to explain it. I can’t. I believe that the immense God exists, and for reasons beyond my comprehension, He has chosen to care deeply about His creations. (Even that statement is very humanistic, but I have no other words to express it) I don’t even try to understand why. Perhaps I choose to believe because if it isn’t true, then there is no point to life – mine or anybody else’s. We become mere animals, who live, procreate, and die. We are simply vessels that link the past and the future generations – and I am unwilling to accept that.
I guess I fall into the category that someone expressed so well… “I just don’t have enough faith to be an athiest”.
>>it is you that are playing hide and seek by looking for the tangible>>
Heh.
“I fled Him, down the nights and down the days;
I fled Him, down the arches of the years;
I fled Him, down the labyrinthine ways
Of my own mind…”
http://www.houndsofheaven.com/thepoem.htm
(Hey, sorry I’m late to the party.)
A geologist trying to understand the details and origins of a geologically complex area will collect as much data as he can: outcropping samples, surface soil samples, stream sediment samples, aerial contour maps of magnetics and resistivity, assays of drilled core samples, down-hole telemetry, etc.. Having brought all the data back to the office, he then begins the task of trying to sort through it all and make a 3D model over time (OK, more of a 4D model, technically). Ultimately, it all makes sense, and it all has an explanation — no one would deny the mountains got there somehow — but that doesn’t stop some data from appearing to contradict other data, and other data from being simply wrong due to human error, and it doesn’t necessarily mean that we will ever understand precisely what happened under that part of the Earth 95 million years ago. So, as it is best when mounting a wheel to place all six nuts on loosely and then gradually and iteratively tighten down opposite pairs — rather than wrenching in the first one completely before even reaching for the second — it is best to try to achieve a loose fit with all (or most) of the geo data before stepping with full weight on any one piece of the puzzle. And it is also best to remember that some data sources are more primary (e.g. core samples) and some are more derived (e.g. stream sediment a fair ways downstream).
Sorry for the extended analogy, but with regard to your first question, DQ, it sounds like you’re trying to resolve a very primary question by the comparison of two somewhat derivative conclusions. And I would suggest that these are not the first two lug nuts that one should tighten down. As others have pointed out, omniscience is not the same thing as specific control, even if we assume God actively chose the final general result from among a number of alternatives. More primary indicators of this primary question, I think, are the nothing-comes-from-nothing aspect of the Big Bang; the breathtaking fine-tuning of physical constants; the even-more-breathtaking improbability of millions of atoms magically falling into just the right blueprint all at once to form the first eating, respirating and self-reproducing single-cell organism; the leap-and-plateau nature of the fossil record; and the remarkable specificity and accuracy of biblical prophecy. Potential conflict between God’s omniscience and God’s granting of free will is better resolved after establishing that there is a God.
With regard to your second question — why we were created imperfect — I would echo the fine comments already made, and add that we are not clones of God, but merely pale shadows.
Your third question was whether believers are guilty of arguing based on emotion. Yes.
As a thought experiment, imagine that as a child, your favorite uncle gave you a small, hinged, antique wooden box.* He explained that you can ask the box anything, and then open it up. If the answer is “yes,” you will see two green marbles sitting there inside on the plush, velvet lining — not the cheap glass variety, but actual marble marbles. If the answer is “no,” it’s one red marble, and if the answer is a bit muddled, it’s a gray marble. You’ve used the box for decades, and it’s never been wrong. One day, you ask the box, “Does God exist?” and reach to open the lid. Now, really, truly… what do you want to see? The answer to this question will have a tremendous potential to sway anyone’s analysis, regardless of which answer they give. The trick, of course, is to recognize our own biases and compensate for them. On both sides, some do this better than others. (For years, I had a low view of the intellect of theists because I was overcompensating, and unwilling to examine the theistic paradigm.)
Now, as to standards of proof. Millennia of debate over the existence of God seem only to have settled only that it is likely impossible to prove either way beyond all doubt, and arguably even reasonable doubt. And yet, as we each have to make a functional decision, is it not logical to fall back on a preponderance of evidence? I think so. And so long as I cannot say with a straight face that I think the ridiculous complexity of the photosensitive cells in human retina — actually conferring an evolutionary dis-advantage until complete, and irreducible in their complexity — maybe just happened by a fantastic combination of fortuitous and simultaneous mutations, then I am uncomfortable in accepting the non-theistic position. Add in another, like the clotting of blood, which requires nineteen different proteins in a complex, microbiological ballet, with not a single one of them able to be excused from the process inside of any organism that wants to survive a papercut. Now add in thousands more of these examples of “get it right all in one shot or else” engineering for the human body alone, plus all the major organs and systems of organs in all the phyla that have ever existed. And for the grand finale, let’s try to explain, without the benefit of the biological process of evolution, the pre-biological formation of the first single-celled organism, complete with the necessary ribosomes, mitochondria, etc., to make it function, and a long strand of DNA with all of the coded information to make a second one. It was at that point that Sir Francis Crick, co-discoverer of DNA, and Richard Dawkins, reigning Grand Apologist of Atheism, among others, threw up their hands and said, “Well, it was probably space aliens.”
Crick and Dawkins are resolutely determined to see one red marble, as are many people. The rational, numerate, orderly-mind crowd is greatly comforted by knowing that the universe makes perfect sense and can be completely described by equations, and two green marbles would destroy much of that beautiful knowledge and order. Narcissists are unwilling to see two green marbles unless those marbles refer to them. Meticulous intellects who have carefully built layer upon layer of conclusions over a lifetime, based on a solid foundation of premises, as the Egyptians built the pyramids, shudder at the thought of hearing, “Nice job on the pyramid, but now Pharoah wants the bottom layer of stones to be made of green marble. Will it be hard to swap them out?” Other careful intellects are reluctant to accept any of the truth of something that cannot be fully and perfectly explained. People with non-believing friends and family are reluctant to disrupt those strong bonds. We all have our biases; what’s important is to recognize and compensate.
* This scenario is more commonly framed as, “Suppose you could ask God anything…” But, for the sake of argument, I am willing to concede that God’s objectivity as a witness on this particular question might plausibly be called into question.
Suek, your last two paragraphs in your first comment above express perfectly why I believe man needed to create God, and did so. BTW, if God created man, one would think that there would be a sort of concensus as to who or what God is (unless he is realling playing hide-and-seek!). If man created God, it would seem there would be endless dispute over the matter. For all of recorded history, there has been endless dispute. That seems as significant as anything else to me.
Hi Spartacus. I want to see the truth. Of course, if I got to choose the truth I’d choose that there be a God, that He be loving, that I could accept Him as my Savior and that I could live forever in heavenly bliss (selfish, that last one). But I don’t get a choice. The truth is the truth and, for better or worse, I’d want the box to reveal that truth.
Granted that all that we know of the real world is quite remarkable, it does not solve the problem to posit a creator that is even more remarkable. Why is the even more remarkable easier to believe than the less remarkable?
Oh, and I’m not saying God controls the outcome. I’m saying that God is supposed to know the outcome. If the outcome can be known, then it is not open to the possibility of change; it is fixed. And, if the future is fixed and we are not at liberty to change it, our choices are already made for us. We have no free will, no matter how much we feel and act like we do.
BTW, why is it not possible to have a God who created everything and knows everything since the beginning of creation, but who cannot look into the future? That would explain, for example, God’s anger at Adam and Eve. He didn’t know what choice they were going to make and was disappointed and angry at the choice they did make.
When I write or say things like the last paragraph I am roundly criticized for demanding proofs of God. My first answer is that we require proofs of everything else in life. That’s what our whole debate with liberals is about; the proof that socialism doesn’t work is all on our side. Why is God different? Why shouldn’t we demand proof of something so profoundly important as God’s love?
Your line of questioning is hardly unique or deserving of criticism, DQ. It is similar to the lines of questioning that were followed by many Christian luminaries, such as C.S. Lewis and G.K. Chesterton, who arrived at their faith only after all their questions had been resolved.
I have no more evidence for this than believers have for God.
Now that, DQ, is presumptuous: I and many other religious people will tell you that we have more-than enough evidence to confirm the existence of God to our satisfaction. It’s just not in a form that we can share with you, be it in print, oral recitation or video representation. However, I can share my own evidence with many other Christians and they will immediately know and understand that of which I speak.
Sorry, to be presumptuous, Danny. It’s just that evidence that can’t be shared with those who do not already believe seems pretty meaningless to me, no matter how much meaning it may have for you and other believers. I’m curious. How do you deal with the fact that many other believers in various religious systems would completely disagree with your claim to “evidence” but find plenty of “evidence” supporting their own beliefs which others who share their beliefs “will immediately know and understand”?
One of the many mysteries of how God structured the universe is the concept of faith. God places such a premium on it. We rely on it everyday and could not exist without it. We continually accept so much about the world on faith, yet bristle at the idea of accepting God on faith. Yet without faith, we would all be living like Howard Hughes.
That doesn’t mean we give up the quest to understand the physical world or the spiritual. Can I prove to you that God exists? Probably not to your satisfaction because at some point the connection from the physical to the spiritual is connected by faith.
I used to complain to a friend that God should have put a big neon light in the sky that said “Believe Me”. It would make life so much easier, I thought, because God seemed so distant at times. And yet the Bible describes God as desiring a close relationship. It seemed so contradictory.
But God rewards faithfulness. Faith is critical to life. It may be the bridge between the spiritual and the physical.
In the early days of the Dilbert Blog, Scott Adams spent a lot of time poking at the idea of free will as an illusion. I’m not sure those posts are still around.
Long story short, free will as a concept is hard to pin down. At the root of things, you have the freedom to use a decision process to make choices, or free will. However, the decision process is formed and influenced on the basis of your life experiences. You can do as you will but not will how you will, i.e. your decision process is your own but you don’t externally decide what your decision process will be.
Leave God out of things for now, it’s not necessarily a religious issue. Even something as simple as a coin flip can be expressed in terms of math and physics, given sufficient data and computing power a scientist can theoretically predict how a coin will land. This theoretical predictive power extends across everything, only really stopping at the quantum scale. However the “sufficient” in “sufficient data” is too large to actually manage in all but the simplest of cases. (This is why “God” is often brought in as the natural choice for an infinitely informed observer, but all you need for the thought experiment is a theoretical construct, religion isn’t important here.)
So this extends all the way to the human mind. A computer or whatever with sufficient knowledge of the human brain and a person’s life experiences should be able to predict the outcome of a decision, essentially by running a simulation of the decision process itself, which is no different from the actual decision process that the person goes through.
It’s a sort of predestination not by God or fate or time, but by your own brain. Just because an theoretical infinately imformed computer could predict it does not reduce the validity of the free will.
Now, if you do want things from the religious angle, why God granted free will to his creations and all that, it’s a whole other ball of wax.
To add to BrianE’s point, DQ: if God did have a Flashing Neon Sign up in heaven declaring His existence, then belief in God would be oh so simple, wouldn’t it?
One of the points made (I believe) by C.S. Lewis (“Mere Christianity”?) is that faith is a measure of one’s true love for God. Were such a neon sign to exist, the odds of Pascal’s wager would no longer be a wager http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pascal's_Wager
Think of it as a spouse telling you “If you truly loved me, you would trust me”, rather than “if you promise to love me, I shall share with you the fortune of my inheritance”. Our faith is a measure of our love for God.
How do you deal with the fact that many other believers in various religious systems would completely disagree with your claim to “evidence” but find plenty of “evidence” supporting their own beliefs which others who share their beliefs “will immediately know and understand”?
I am under no obligation to prove my faith to anyone else, nor is anyone else under an obligation to prove their faith to me. As for the nature of evidence provided, I have personally never been put into a situation before where anyone of another faith shared “evidence” with me that would contradict my own faith. For example, I had a young Muslim once tell me that he knew that Christ had never been crucified but that his body had been stolen and hidden away by his followers. His evidence: it was so written in the Koran. I have had fundamentalist Christians tell me that, according to their faith, the universe is only 4,000-or-so years old. In both cases, I evaluated their testament of faith and found it wanting. But, they are free to believe what they believe just as am I.
I can only resort to my own faith, the evidence presented to me as a seeker, and I am fine with that. Every person’s life is a personal journey.
Brian E: Remember when Christ said that some would not believe if they saw the dead raised? Then He resurrected Lazarus, and what was the result? The leadership who opposed him went back to Jerusalem and began plotting His death. The important thing for any of us is to be open to the possibility that we’re wrong…excess certainty can lead to evil outcomes. If we’re personally certain, and take the consequences, that’s one thing. When we are willing to impose on those around us, we cross the line. The current situation with Islam ought to be a lesson in this.
Great post, Spartacus…well done. I’d not heard the box/marbles analogy and that’s useful. By the way, my geologist friends are all agree that the old chestnut is correct: The authority of the geologist is inversely proportional to the size of the outcrop. The more evidence, the messier the details get…I think that part of this is what DQ is struggling with – if we have relatively simple minds we hold onto a few basic truths and ignore the rest. Some of us can’t do that…it’s been a struggle for me, at times.
DQ: Some Christians *do* accept that G*d has no “knowledge” of the future, but He knows enough about His creation and about us as individuals to make really good predictions, much as I don’t *know* what my wife will order at B&R, but I haven’t been wrong, yet. I’m not sure that I can discern the difference in how things work, but I haven’t worked at it very hard, either. Be easy, brother — just don’t do evil. Read C.S. Lewis’ The Last Battle – one of my favorite books – it will explain how I look at all of this these days…Emeth.
DQ, belief in God is certainly rational and fact based. What do you mean by “non-fact-based God”?
There are many examples of battles that were won only due to God’s grace or providence. You can clearly see it through Christian history, starting even with Attilla the Hun, going through the Ottoman fleet naval battles, and ending up in America and her wars.
So I think there’s far more evidence of God’s existence than the counter has been presented by those who do not believe in God’s existence.
The other dimensions described in Quantum Physics are where God exists, free to move in and out of the dimensions.
There’s also the concept of the Dirac sea, which is a sort of geometric explanation of Zero energy or vacuum energy or how a cubic centimeter of vacuum has infinite energy or something approaching that.
The truth is, I have no idea how the universe came to be and how life, intelligence and self-awareness arose.
Which raises the question of why you believe as you do, when you have not committed your life or even half of it to the question. Whereas numerous philosopher, including those who were anti-atheists, and legions of theologians have spent accumulated centuries of time researching and experimenting with the question.
What makes you believe your view is righter than theirs? So far from your life experience, DQ, all you can say is that you don’t believe what you were taught by Calvinists or neo-Calvinists. That has nothing to do with God’s existence or the truth of other religions, however. That’s the same logical fallacy that people in California apply to guns. They see a gun being used by evil people and then say that they can eradicate evil by getting rid of guns. You experienced one church’s interpretation of God and now you want to apply your response to it, to God or things God has touched.
Yet he hides.
If he showed himself openly, he’d have a bunch of people who’d elect him President of the United States, like they did with Obama. They’d look to his power to solve things, just like they look to government to solve things. And they’d do evil and murder and mayhem in his name, justifying it as the “social good” just as LibProgs do it in the name of centralized government. He hides because people need to do things by themselves, DQ. Or do you believe in the statist mantra that you need a higher power to control such individuals for their own good. A good central government is an invisible government. How much more so for an entity that is both omniscient and omnipotent.
When I write or say things like the last paragraph I am roundly criticized for demanding proofs of God.
The proof already exists. That’s my position but others may differ.
(Hey, sorry Ifm late to the party.)
Were you expecting a TSA pat down for being late?
With regard to your second question \ why we were created imperfect \ I would echo the fine comments already made, and add that we are not clones of God, but merely pale shadows.
Perfection essentially means you cannot improve. God, if he is omniscient and omnipotent, cannot improve hmself. Thus if he wishes to see improvement, he must create imperfect beings that can grow through mistakes. Otherwise, he can just clone himself or divide himself, but then he’d just be looking at a mirror. Is creation really creation if you just create an exact duplicate of yourself? One would consider that plagiarism or copying, not true artistic creation.
It’s just that evidence that can’t be shared with those who do not already believe seems pretty meaningless to me, no matter how much meaning it may have for you and other believers.
To restate what I have mentioned before, the proof already exists. It is simply not taken as enough by atheists but primarily atheists aren’t aware of its existence at all. They don’t have enough knowledge of history for it or of human behavior to form a prerequisite.
Sadie, yep that sounds like it. Thanks
Of course, if I got to choose the truth I’d choose that there be a God, that He be loving, that I could accept Him as my Savior and that I could live forever in heavenly bliss (selfish, that last one).
That’s also an intellectual vulnerability. Meaning, when you start looking at the facts and you have this perspective emotionally, it’s going to distort how you perceive the factual evidence. For some it may make them see what isn’t there, to positively affirm what they wish to exist. For others, it may make them refuse to see what is there, for they fear to be wrong.
In point of fact, I know perhaps more than my fair share of atheists and their stories all start to sound alike on this single point. Which is simply that they were brought up with a religious background and they were turned off it because they either disliked the Old Testament or they wanted a loving God but too many bad stuff in the world disillusioned them to it. Or you have those like Helen Losse, which converted from the religion they were brought up to a “new and better” religion. With respect to atheism, that just means they differ on what they ended up believing though the reasons they stopped believing were often the same or similar.
I would warrant that I have seen far more of the demonic and evil side of human affairs than you have, DQ. Not because your life is any rosier than mine but simply because I did not shut my eyes when given an opportunity to see. Yet, have you ever questioned yourself on the matter of why you don’t believe in God yet I do?
First, if God is perfect, why did he create human beings (supposedly in his likeness) who are imperfect?
You answered that question yourself. God would be bored if he knew everything and nothing he did changed anything in new and interesting ways. So he created imperfect entities, whether humans or aliens or both, to be what he could not.
why was God angry?
This was from the Old Testament. Back in those days, a damn star would strike from the heavens and people thought “God was angry”. People were superstitious, tribal, dumb, ignorant, and blood crazed, DQ. What did you expect? Even if the Truth of Light and Salvation came to them, they would not understand even a tenth of it. This is a result more of human nature than God’s nature.
Why did he create us to make the worng decision, not the right one?
This is a shallow level of perspective. Decisions are not right or wrong. That is too limiting a perspective. Decisions only have consequences seen objectively. Whether those consequences are “right” or “wrong” is judged based upon human limitations and biases. Or did you think the Left thought redistributing money was wrong, just like you or other conservatives? Humans differ on what is right or wrong. Yet applying concepts of human morality to God is not very wise.
Isnft it ironic that conservatives who trust in fact-based arguments in this world are more likely to believe in a non-fact-based God than liberals
How much of the history of the Roman Church have you read and understood? You might want to go back to where it all started, when people faced and saw death on a very personal level, before you start talking about whether it is ironic believers trust in facts or not. Be assured, when the ancients saw hundreds of humans crucified on the Via Apia, it didn’t look to them like non-fact based arguments at all. It is precisely because human existence was harsh and miserable and that all too often they were faced with the facts of life that humans came to believe in the Christian God. Simply because the life you have lived now is devoid of experience with such fact based arguments in favor of God, does not mean those facts are nonexistent.
Isnft the fact that even believers have such trouble agreeing on who/what God is compelling evidence that man created God and not the other way around?
How is free will consistent with God compelling his creations to always think and say the same thing about God? You’re confusing political correctness and secret thought police methods with God’s existence here. You shouldn’t be making assumptions that people have no free will and using it as an a priori to argue about the nature of God. It’s first and primarily a mistake of logic, but that’s not all it is a mistake in.
To continue, whether a bunch of people agree or disagree, has ZERO to do with the truth of anything. You might as well say “isn’t the fact that even Americans have such trouble agreeing on what the US Constitution says compelling evidence that God did not give people the right to life, property, and pursuit of happiness”. It does not follow from the premise.
Perhaps there is a creative force that itself is not sentient or that is so beyond our understanding as to be meaningless (gsufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magich).
That just pushes the question up one order of causation. What created that “creative force”? What created the big bang? What is A that caused B that caused sentience that caused humans to be created, if you are using the alien created humanity line. Saying humans were created not by God, still leaves the question of first causes unanswered. It’s not an answer just a delay/pause.
the immense-beyond-understanding God who is the only reasonable explanation for the creation of the world we live in, and the personal God — who cares about us individually, and cares about the choices we make.
Suek is right in this theological interpretation as the first God is a metaphysical God and the second God is the revealed truth God found in religious and prophetic texts. Arguments that disprove the latter, do not in fact impact the former.
From Sadie’s article.
Penrose claims the circles provide a look back past the “wall” of the most recent Big Bang into the universe’s previous episode.
I interpret this more as a test. Can humanity or any other work of God develop quickly enough that they can either prevent this universe collapse or bypass it by transcending this dimension entirely? Given that God has infinite time to play with and infinite universes to do so during that time, he’s going to find an answer sooner or later. But that answer will not necessarily come from this universe or this species.
Which is where free will comes in. Does humanity wish to succeed or fail on the universal level?
You are having a frame of reference problem. This is how you reframe it. Yesterday you made decisions. Today you know the results of those decisions. Just because today you “now” know the results of yesterday’s decisions doesn’t mean you weren’t free to make the decisions you did yesterday. Time is a property of the universe according to most scientists. If you suppose a Creator, you must suppose he exists outside his creation. Thus, a Creator would exist outside time. Therefore, a proposed solution is that in essence God lives in perpetual Tomorrow – actually beyond time and space – never was in it. So to him you’ve already done what you will do even before you’ve done it, because to him its already tomorrow. You are still free to do it because you live in today, he “lives” in perpetual tomorrow. You can have free will, and God know the outcome of your decisions, if God’s knowledge of your decisions comes from his perspective outside time – in essence being in tomorrow. So, why would God create something like this when he knows some people will make bad choices?? He must also know some people will make good choices. So why not. Those choices are a worthy end in themselves no? Its a nice example of how we are handicapped in our perceptions – like fish in a fish tank. Hope this helps. Logic leads toward belief. You can talk about collapsing wave fronts and not be wrong, but most people won’t follow it.
(eating the apple, as it were), why was God angry?
How do you know he was angry?
Logically it makes more sense to believe than not.
If there is no God, but you live life as though there was, you lose nothing. You lived a rewarding life (lets face it the rules that believers try to follow generally lead to happiness, and are a source of comfort in this world that unbelievers do not have) and at the time you die, if there is no God you are unaware of your “mistake”.
If there is a God and you live as a selfish loat – then you are going to have a problem. Game theory – believe and you maximize your net outcomes, regardless of the truth. Thomas Aquinas – basically invented game theory with that one.
Q:Isn’t the fact that even believers have such trouble agreeing on who/what God is compelling evidence that man created God and not the other way around?
A: No. For example:
Isn’t the fact that even the worlds greatest believers in (fill in blank A) have such trouble agreeing on (fill in the blank A) compelling evidence that man created (fill in the blank A) and not the other way around?
Its not compelling evidence of anything other than disagreement. Go ahead in fill in the blanks with other examples and you see its not very compelling at all.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XChVq93DkPU
They’re made out of meat. By Terry Bisson. Hilarious frame of reference story.
PS sorry but I wrongly credited pascal’s wager to Aquinas. Pascal should get the credit for that and for game theory.
Buenos Tardes, Sr. Quixote,
“And, if the future is fixed and we are not at liberty to change it, our choices are already made for us.”
No offense, but I really think you’re over-intellectualizing this one. In my everydy life, I have no perception that I am not making my own decisions. If you also have that general feeling of control, it’s probably best just to roll with that as the most likely explanation. I think, in a sense, that the future is currently being fixed in place by our decisions. Predictability on our part, even from the viewpoint of an omniscient, is merely that.
Although it is unwise to presume to understand God’s motives in detail, my gut sense is that free will is the only good explanation for why God would take a beautiful and sinless (because it was lifeless) universe and populate it with beings whom he could predict would morally cr*p all over His morally perfect creation. If He really wanted to control us, I think we would be much better behaved.
“BTW, why is it not possible to have a God who created everything and knows everything since the beginning of creation, but who cannot look into the future?”
You know, I’ve also kind of wondered about a variation on this one: What if God has the ability to number-crunch and foresee whatever He wants to, but doesn’t necessarily spend much time forecasting the outcome of most subplots? Interesting, but unknowable.
“Granted that all that we know of the real world is quite remarkable, it does not solve the problem to posit a creator that is even more remarkable.”
In the early 1960′s the county clerk of Essex County, NJ was a fellow named Nicholas Caputo. It was his job to lay out the arrangement of the ballots. Because there is a well-known advatage for a candidate to ocupy the top line, he was required by law to select the order of candidates listed by random chance. In 41 of 42 cases, a Democrat occupied the top line on the ballot arranged by Mr. Caputo, who was also a Democrat. He claimed to have flipped a coin for each race. Statisticians were brought in as witnesses and described the odds of this — about 1 in 50 billion, if memory serves. The jury returned a verdict of “Oh, whaddaya think? This is Jersey,” and Mr. Caputo went to prison.
My point here is not that juries are infallible — you are well aware that they are not — but that the statistical likelihood of Mr. Caputo’s innocence is almost infinitely greater than the likelihood of even a single protein magically falling together without help from an already-living cell or… other entity. And it only gets harder from there. So, for you to maintain that the existence of a creator is even more remarkable than the spontaneous generation of life ex nihilo, I think you’re glossing over the number of zeroes in the denominator. Without all the follow-on miracles, and just looking at the Big Bang itself, I would assume Ockham’s Razon cuts against any theistic explanation by a score of about 99.9% to 0.1% — hence all of the time I spent as a near-atheist agnostic. But all the follow-on miracles, from proteins to prophesies fulfilled to medically inexplicable healings of people I know (one of them instant, after prayer) to the general sense shared by so many that life does indeed have meaning, tilt the balance of the preponderance of evidence way over in the other direction. And at some point, it’s OK to admit that.
What if God has the ability to number-crunch and foresee whatever He wants to, but doesn’t necessarily spend much time forecasting the outcome of most subplots? Interesting, but unknowable.
An omniscient God would not need the federal government’s paper bureaucracy to keep track of things. The invisible hand of the free market can determine actions and consequences. If it happens, then God knows of it. Thus one can look at the system in question, the free market and its distributed network of processing power, as equivalent to God’s knowledge. He doesn’t need to forecast things because he can check whenever he wants and the system itself will list every transaction and its effects unto infinity. For things in the future, he just moves the timescale forward. For things in the past, he moves it backwards.
The point is, the future isn’t created by knowing about it. The future is created by mortal hands and that which exists on this plane of existence. There is no future if the atoms of this universe doesn’t make it to the future. If God wanted to create a future using solely abstract thought, he wouldn’t need the universe as we know it. Which also implies that if he wanted a future that didn’t require mortal hands to build, he can just make one but it wouldn’t be any place we would recognize it.
I have no objection to those who believe that Man created God. You’re as welcome to be wrong as any of us!
Let’s just not all get offended with each other, OK? There’s a school district – I didn’t note where – that has banned its classrooms from any and all mention or use of Christian symbols, Santa Claus, reindeer, and the colors red and green. Why? They didn’t want anyone to be offended.
Sheesh. You know what? THEY’VE OFFENDED ME!!! I’m offended! Why don’t I count?
Mike, because you are in the class of people it is safe to offend. Heck, you read and comment on conservative blogs, so you’re probably evil to begin with.
Simplemind, see the third chapter of Gensis. God cursed Adam and Eve, denied them the fruit of the tree of life and kicked them out of the garden. Sounds to me like he was pretty ticked off. I agree completely that it would be much more satisfying to believe than to disbelieve. A society greatly benefits when its members are believers in a common religion, too. But I can’t make myself believe just because it would be great to do so.
Spartacus, I enjoyed the story. I wonder how the one Democrat who didn’t make the top of the ballot felt. As to your other point, perhaps development without a creator is statistically nearly impossible, but I’m not sure you fully account for billions of years on trillions of planets. Maybe there is something in how the world came to be (created or not) that favors the development of life. Actually, I don’t have any problem with all of development except for the one extraordinary transition from non-life to life. When scientists can replicate that I’ll feel better about it but in the meantime it strikes me as a miracle. Everything before it can be explained as natural processes and everything after it can be explained by evolution (even though we don’t begin to fully understand either one). But that one moment defies explanation.
But that one moment defies explanation.
Barry White, DQ, it’s Barry White singing those sexy love songs. G-d knew his voice, the music, the lyrics long before Barry was created – He was just holding back the physical manifestation of Barry and only hummed the melodies.
I hope that explains it all and happy to help.
“One reason I ceased to believe in God was that I was taught as I was growing up that God knew everything there was to know — past, present and future. This necessarily meant that the future could currently be known with certainty.”
But not by you.
“Thus, every apparent exercise of free will was illusory. I might feel like I am choosing option A over option B but, in fact, God already knew I was going to choose option A…”
How does that stop you from choosing?
“…and I was not at liberty to choose option B in defiance of what God already knew would happen.”
Defiance. Now we are back to the root of the issue that reared its head in the Garden. This knowledge God has disallows for unrecompnsed deeds weather good or bad. This kind of exposure is unnerving. Nobody likes that kind of exposure, just ask Adam and Eve.
“Despite appearances, I did not have free will.”
Appearances do not have all the information necessary to paint a full picture. For instance we cannot perceive infrared light nor hear things below 20Hz nor above 20kHz. We speak of free will in the context of what we can perceive. Free will, like free seech, paradoxically has its limitations and both come with a price.
“For that matter, neither did God. Can you imagine what it would be like to know with absolute certainty everything you were going to do for all eternity? How boring and pointless to travel a predetermined path, especially one you know about in advance!”
I can imagine only from a 4th dimensional being’s point of view. It would be boring. What I cannot fathom is what it would be like being eternal, existing in all other dimensions without time. God may not have free will as we know it. Omnipotence is not that God can do anything but rather God can do anything that will not violate His nature despite knowing both good and evil.
“How boring to know everything about the future already and to never learn anything new! I almost felt sorry for God.”
The one thing from our POV is God had not experienced was living a human tent: starting at Phillippians 2:5 “Have this attitude in yourselves which was also in Christ Jesus, who, although He existed in the form of God, did not regard equality with God a thing to be grasped, but emptied Himself, taking the form of a bond-servant, and being made in the likeness of men.” He experienced a mother’s tender love, the loss of a father, some pretty good food, wine with great friends, a friend’s betrayal, the wrath of men and a corrupt government’s cross.
So I suppose God “learned” what it was like to live, suffer and die as a human in these lower four dimensions (did I mention resurrection too?).
Feeling sorry for God? I know that at one point it is written that God was sorry that He and made man in the first place. I know this seems to go against omnicience but just how would you if you were God, communicate to lowly 4th dimensional beings in a way they might understand? We say sun up and sun down because it is how we preceive it but that’s really not how it works. Why would God not be justified in doing the same?
But I can’t make myself believe just because it would be great to do so.
No one can make themselves believe and no one here can convince you (or anyone else) either. Try asking God instead of us. I believe he’ll answer you.
“Q: How do you know God was angry? Simplemind, see the third chapter of Gensis. God cursed Adam and Eve, denied them the fruit of the tree of life and kicked them out of the garden. Sounds to me like he was pretty ticked off. I agree completely that it would be much more satisfying to believe than to disbelieve. A society greatly benefits when its members are believers in a common religion, too. But I can’t make myself believe just because it would be great to do so.” (That was a trick question Don. You don’t know unless you rely on the bible, which you don’t. I won’t pick on you though. Some faith’s believe the bible literally – my faith doesn’t. Its seen as revealed truth but in allegory and parable and subject to human kind’s subjective interpretation.) So it was a curse to be ejected from the garen of eden. Is free will a curse or a gift? Suppose it depends on your point of view. The result of the choice to eat of the forbidden fruit and exercise of free will is what mandated an exit from the Garden. Surely it isn’t possible to live in paradise when the inhabitants of the garden are free to make bad choices – it wouldn’t be a paradise for long. So we weren’t really forced to leave – we chose to end paradise when we took the bite. In essence as a human with free will you self select the life you lead in many ways. This is the parable of the garden. You say: “But I can’t make myself believe just because it would be great to do so.” You don’t have to make yourself do it. You can choose to do it. Like eating a salad versus french fries. There is no magic moment that is like voila – I now believe when before I was skeptical. I chose to believe, even though I am still skeptical. Its just that I accept that my logic is limited and where I have an absence of proof I still choose to pray and go to church etc. It really helps – - especially when you get older and you see your relatives start to pass on. Again, if God isn’t in the same time stream as you and I. He knows what we did – cause we’ve already done it, and we were free to do it when we did it. Its like you were free to make decisions yesterday that you know the results of today. Knowledge of the results today doesn’t mean you weren’t free to do something different yesterday. Honestly – - read some really good science fiction. It will help you open you mind to different scientific ideas that will help you reframe the issue. The potential of God is not foreclosed by anything said in the bible or discovered by science to date. You certainly don’t have to believe, any more than you have to eat a salad instead of fries for lunch. Its your call. There’s no fundamental proof either way. Belief is an action, a behavior, not a state of being brought about by an ephipany – well at least not by anyone I know about since – -St. Paul. Actually, he’s the only one I’ve ever heard of having that kind of conversion. If it happens, I don’t think it happens very often –like winning the lottery so to speak. You have a better chance of getting hit by lightning than you do of having an epiphany conversion. So feel free to make your own call – that’s kind of the point of this whole existence thing.
Honestly – – read some really good science fiction.
I think one of the fundamental issues is that people simply cannot grasp what omniscience or omnipotence are. The good thing about science fiction or space opera is that they depict technologically advanced species that have more knowledge and are more powerful than what we would term human technology.
The way limits to infinity are done is that we approach infinity, selecting points closer and closer to infinity, the limit, to then find the limit, the barrier of the incomprehensible.
So when a person understands how something can be more powerful and more wise, but without being perfect, they can more adequately grasp the concept of omniscience and omnipotence: the infinite depths.
So basically you get from SF all these magical technology that destroys stars, builds planets, collapses galaxies, goes faster than light, travel back and forth in time and then you realize God is just a step beyond that. That if you take the gap between a galaxy spanning empire and human civilization on this planet, the difference between that galaxy spanning empire and God would be an infinite number of times greater than the difference between humanity and that galaxy spanning empire. In point of fact, such a galaxy spanning empire would have power many humans would call “godlike” but they are not gods.
Conceptually, and mathematically, it is a usable method to grasp the infinite.
God cursed Adam and Eve, denied them the fruit of the tree of life and kicked them out of the garden.
As mentioned by others here, you are grasp of theology on this point is rather weak, DQ. The bible, Old and New Testament, is considered by orthodox and various unorthodox Christians as being Revealed Truth, not literal divine truth as the Quran is taken as. That means God “revealed” some truths to humans and those humans then took their “interpretation” and wrote it on paper.
So basically you’re taking the line “God cursed Adam and Eve” written in some book by fallible humans and trying to Force it into the mold called “truth”. It’s a bad habit you got from your Calvinist lineaged Church teachings. Just because some humans told you what something was, you automatically now take it as the only possibility in existence and then say that nothing about it is true just because you don’t find anything in it true. You might as well go to court, DQ, in your profession as a lawyer and tell everybody that just because some idiot of a prosecutor couldn’t find a single legitimate legal argument in his case, that this means the entire legal system of the US is just as baseless. Go ahead and do that DQ, because it’ll be and feel exactly the same as the methodology you are using now concerning God and religion.
Besides reading good science fiction, learn how to brew your own beer at home.
“Beer is proof of God’s love.” Benjamin Franklin
He was being funny but also making a point. When you found out how beer is made it seems an oddly convienient confluence of things which would benefit only a sentient being with the corresponding anxiety issues.
Also, there is an amazing difference between what you can do at home versus what you get in the store. They take a lot of the proteins out to increase shelf life. Not an issue at home since you make smaller batches and drink it right up.
“Belief is an action, a behavior, not a state of being brought about by an ephipany – well at least not by anyone I know about since – -St. Paul.”
Here’s an example for you:
“In the course of those days the priest has a vision: he meets the devil who tells him he will become a great warrior. The devil says to increase his power he must continue the rituals of child sacrifice and cannibalism. The initiation is complete and the priest is now one of the most powerful leaders in West Africa. The priest is 11 years old. As prophesied, the boy priest grew up to become one of Liberia’s most notorious warlords: General Butt Naked….
It was the summer of 1996 and his clansmen were caught up in a ferocious battle. It was decided that a sacrifice was needed. As the rockets rained down, a mother brought her three-year-old daughter to him. Something about the child struck the pitiless General and for the first time in his life he hesitated. As he relives the moment with me, his face becomes contorted.
‘The child was very unusually beautiful and kind. Most of the children are brought to me by the elders, they’re crying, they’re fighting. This child was peaceful,’ he recalls. ‘I thought, “This child must not die.” I struggled.
‘Of all of the thousands that I killed, I wish I did not kill that little girl . . . ‘ his voice trails off. He is close to tears for the first and only time. ‘Right after killing her, I had my epiphany.’
He claims he saw a white light in the shape of a man. A voice told him, ‘repent and live or refuse and die’.
He believes it was Christ. The impact was immediate. From that day the killing, the sacrifices and cannibalism ended and Blahyi entered a period of turmoil that led his men to believe he had gone mad. Within months he had left the Butt Naked Brigade and by the end of September 1996 he was baptised in the sea near Monrovia.”
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1333465/Liberias-General-Butt-Naked-The-evil-man-world.html
This story is hard for me. As some know we have a Liberian son who grew up in the war– both his parents were killed in it. Like the disciples after Saul’s conversion were skeptical, it’s hard to not remain skeptical of his conversion. But I have no reason not to think it is sincere.
This link came from another blog, making the point that as Christianity worked its way west, many of the pagan European tribes were practicing similar rituals and the blood-letting was equally vile. Evil is a very real part of human existence, tempered by God’s saving grace.
Simple, my friend in California likes to brew honey lager at home in small patches. He keeps talking about hops and what not.
Given BrianE’s example, I would note that it is only one of many examples of God’s existence. Which is not to say the existence of the god preached by your pastors, DQ. That’s a separate issue.
There is a lot of talk on how to interpret the bible when for the most part it interprets itself. Like any wirting it contains literary genre but unilke a work of fiction or poetry by one author it contians more than one genre and about 40 human authors over a 1500 year time span. Which is why quoting hte bible to prove the bible is a misnomer – one qoutes David to prove Moses etc. Additionally it was written by ancient middle eastern minds. Fast forward to the western 21st century mind and more effort is required than a cursory read stopping at apparant contradictions to understand the subtlties and richness lost in translation. A good book to see this is “How to Read the Bible for all it’s Worth”, it is a guide to the art and science of biblical interpretation. Does answer all? No but but it gives a good foundation from which to better understand.
One thing for sure the Bible is not a science text nor a math book nor a cook book unless you care to try Elijah’s recipie out, ew (I think it was Elijah). It is however a collection of writings that depicts a stormy relationship between God and his beloved creation from its inception to its fall to to the penultimate cost in persuit to redeem those lost if they would and the universes destruction and recreation all to God’s glory.
DQ, I don’t know how Christians question their faith. I know that in Judaism, questioning is not just expected, but in the Yeshiva, you are partnered to argue/discuss/question word by word. It is a way of life for the faithful/religious. If you’re ever curious enough … start at the beginning, it may be helpful.
http://www.askmoses.com/en/article/190,104/What-are-the-Mishnah-and-Talmud.html
Sadie, a minimum familiarity with theology and the basic theological arguments and counter-arguments would be a good start.
“DQ, I don’t know how Christians question their faith.”
Sadie, it has been said that G-d has more respect for the honest skeptic than the believing hypocryte.
Our Apostle Paul (a former Pharisee) extolled the virtues of Berean Christians and encouraged other churches to be like them for not taking his word for it (or anybody elses for that matter) but evaluating everything by the scriptures (which at that time was the Tanakh). This is a form of doubt. Or a precursor to Regan’s “Trust but verify”
There is a great deal about believing and not doubting in Christianity but I think it gets misconstrued at times. Jesus said to “Ask and it will be given to you, seek and you will find, and knock and the door will be opened for you”. In the western mind that is a one time thing, but the tense of the passage as written is present as in keep on asking, keep on seeking and keep on knocking. Persue G-d as Jacob would not release the angel after a night of wrestling without a blessing. Another saying is “Draw nigh to God and He will draw nigh to you”.
In his persuit of his directive by his heavenly Father Jesus in the Garden of Gethsemene asked, no, pleaded if there was another way to accomplish this heavy task but in the end yeiled (obeyed) his Father’s will with the words “Yet not my will be doen but yours.”. Observe the hills and valleys of King David.
Faith is a verb and and to live it is an adventure.
DQ — I’ve recommended it before, but as Churchill said, “nothing succeeds like excess,” so I’ll recommend — no, humbly implore — that you check out Michael Behe’s Darwin’s Black Box. Behe is a professor of microbiology and was a devout atheist until, as a grad student, he tried to work out the precise mechanics of microbiological evolution. You have free will [wink] not to follow him in Chapter 9, but the first eight chapters are straight, factual, microbiological truth, which is what you are looking for.
Mike — I periodically stick my foot in my mouth (I’ve always had flexible joints) and knowing this, have a well-ingrained habit of worrying that I may have unknowingly done so. You cryptically asked for folks here not to get offended with each other… was that a set-up for that joke, or do I need to unlatch my jaw and give a good tug on my ankle? I’ve got quite a few pixels up there, so I thought it best to ask.
OK, one more thought. A story, from Ireland. Apologies that the details are a bit fuzzy.
A philosopher or comedian or something (and an American, I think) was speaking in front of an Irish audience, and probably mentioned something about skepticism of religion. At one point, a lady in the crowd asked if he was Protestant or Catholic. “Neither,” he replied, “I’m an atheist.” “Yes,” she continued, but is it the God of the Protestants or the God of the Catholics that you don’t believe in?”
Spartacus, I found that book very interesting, well at least the 1st third and the last third
Another set of books that are really for the I-just-need-an-outline kind of reader is the Josh McDowell books Evidence That Demands a Verdict 1&2, or a shorter version “More Than a Carpenter”. “Who moved the Stone?” by Frank Morrison is intriging as well. One more J.B. Phillips “Your God is Too Small” for some thought provocation.
I wonder why DQ often stops commenting or writing once Book is back.
Thank you all so much for the good ideas and for your patience with me. Lots to read and think about.
Y-man, as I’ve often said, I’m not a blogger. I enjoying filling in when Bookworm is out and have especially enjoyed this thread. I always learn a lot from the Bookwormroom readers. But I’m not a blogger at heart. I wouldn’t want to do this on a regular basis, and I’m more than happy to give the reins back to Book when she returns from her vacations. I do, and will, still write from time to time when the urge strikes. Because the rest of my life is freeing up a bit, I may pop in a bit more often, even when Book is here. We’ll see. In the meantime, thanks again to all of you.
But I’m not a blogger at heart.
I’m not sure what you mean when you use the term blogger. There are many people who blog but never comment. Then there are those who comment a lot but don’t blog nearly as much. By blog, I mean posting, in a blog post.
In the meantime, thanks again to all of you.
I think i can understand that. Until then, then.
http://reason.com/archives/2010/11/30/the-eleventh-commandment-punis
Another reference example for the objective benefit of belief vs non-belief.
On the matter of humans creating God, people have to realize something. No mortal can create a system that works this efficiently. Not the communists and not the fascists. This is a bottom up distributed system. It took human intelligence thousands of years to come up with Locke and free market systems. And people expect “somebody” to have created a system even better than that to deal with ignorant savages back in the 1000 BC days? come on.
DQ, Thank you for taking on such a ‘heavenly’ topic. Enjoy the photos.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1334672/Jaw-dropping-image-enormous-supercell-cloud-Glasgow-Montana.html
Those were awesome, Sadie. Thank you!
Hi, Bookworm… longtime reader, first time commenter. :)
Here’s my thought on the omniscience of God: God knows all that can be known. Since the future cannot be known–since it hasn’t happened yet, and actually never *will* happen, since all we ever really know or experience is the present–God doesn’t know what *will* happen. Time as we know it is pretty much a construct of humanity, and the Universe pretty much operates without regard to time or any other arbitrary or artificial measurement.
That being the case, free will is entirely plausible, both in the practical and the emotional sense. I’ll mention this analogy: as a parent, you’ve probably experienced a time when your children brought home a “I love mommy and daddy” picture or card that they made at school (if not, just know that my wife and I have, so that’s the basis for my analogy). They are sweet, and we hang on to them for a bit, but they just don’t have the sentimentality that the drawing of a WWI dog fight gave me, when I see that my son wrote “I (heart) U Dad” just because, out of the blue. What’s this to do with free will? Well, God loves us so much that He gives us the chance to turn away from Him; forcing us to follow Him or love Him is as meaningful as the cards our kids HAVE to make at school for us–they are touching and sweet and endearing, but nowhere NEAR as special as those times that they willingly choose to honor us and think of us and express their love for us.
Clumsy explanation, perhaps, but that’s been my take. I love reading your site, so thought that I’d chime in for a change.