God gave man free will.  Freedom to choose how to live our lives; whether or not to believe in him and even whether or not to continue living.  Does this take away his ability to predict, unequivocally, the path our lives will take until the end?

shredbaron:

God gave man free will. Freedom to choose how to live our lives; whether or not to believe in him and even whether or not to continue living. Does this take away his ability to predict, unequivocally, the path our lives will take until the end?

Yes it does. If not, free will is only an illusion and everything is predetermined.

@nferyn - my sentiments exactly so where did this notion of omni-potence spring from?

My guess if that the notion of God giving humans free will came from the problem of evil. It is impossible to explain evil in this world if God is both omnipotent and omnibenevolent. But then again, this creates more problems than it solves.

In light of the self-contradictory nature of this God, the best to do is to get rid of the concept altogether as it has only explanatory power for the gullible that can brush aside these contradictions

It sure is contradictory. So which concept are we getting rid of? That God gave us free will; that he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent; or that he exists in the first place?

I think there is a lot of evidence to support the fact that God gave man free will. One obvious one is Him putting a tree of which fruit man was never to eat in the garden of eden. This gave man the option to do so at any time if he should choose to. This was at the very beginning of time. Why, if he already knew how this will end? Where it starts getting dicey for me is the all knowing concept that people keep throwing around. To what extent is that the case?

As for God not being existent at all, that is a whole huge debate. Evolutionary theorists have debated that to death. My personal view is that it is a copout.  Like you said there are many contradictions about this God or shall I say appear to be many contradictions about him. Are there really or are these mere misinterpretations by various people eager to believe that God is everything imaginable?

shredbaron:

It sure is contradictory. So which concept are we getting rid of? That God gave us free will; that he is omnipotent and omnibenevolent; or that he exists in the first place?

That he exists at all.

shredbaron:

I think there is a lot of evidence to support the fact that God gave man free will. One obvious one is Him putting a tree of which fruit man was never to eat in the garden of eden. This gave man the option to do so at any time if he should choose to. This was at the very beginning of time. Why, if he already knew how this will end? Where it starts getting dicey for me is the all knowing concept that people keep throwing around. To what extent is that the case?

The evidence only exists if you start from the belief that God exists and that the Bible is his word. If you do not start from that assumptions, the evidence is no longer there.

shredbaron:

As for God not being existent at all, that is a whole huge debate. Evolutionary theorists have debated that to death. My personal view is that it is a copout. Like you said there are many contradictions about this God or shall I say appear to be many contradictions about him. Are there really or are these mere misinterpretations by various people eager to believe that God is everything imaginable?

Actually, evolutionary theorist do not touch the existence of God at all. Evolution has nothing to do with the concept of God. The Theory of Evolution starts after the first life forms were there. It does not touch on the beginning of life or on the orgin of the universe. The theory only explains the diversity of life we encounter on earth today and in the past.

And why would that be a cop out? In view of the evidence, it is the most logical conclusion.

@nferyn

If you have  already concluded that GOD does not exist then you are way ahead of me. We grow up realising that there are two schools of thought. That there is a supreme being that created all things; or that the universe evolved from nothing.

Actually, evolutionary theorist do not touch the existence of God at all. Evolution has nothing to do with the concept of God. The Theory of Evolution starts after the first life forms were there. It does not touch on the beginning of life or on the origin of the universe. The theory only explains the diversity of life we encounter on earth today and in the past.

It sure does not start from a human being called Adam or anything remotely resembling humans.

For me, to say that the universe just happened or evolved takes every bit as much faith as believing that a supreme being clicked it all into place. I am still open to finding out if God did it all!

And why would that be a cop out? In view of the evidence, it is the most logical conclusion.

Once again good for you if you have enough evidence to arrive at this conclusion. Do share it with me sometime. For me evolution does not explain how the first organism popped into existence enough to satisfy my curiosity. And, you also say it does not touch on creation. So where is the evidence? How did it all come about.

I think dropping the whole God concept merely because if a few contractions, real or assumed, before I figure out which they are will be premature. Like I said looking forward to seeing what conclusive evidence you have been able to collect.

shredbaron:

If you have already concluded that GOD does not exist then you are way ahead of me. We grow up realising that there are two schools of thought. That there is a supreme being that created all things; or that the universe evolved from nothing.

A supreme being implies that it exists to start with. This just pushes the question a little further without actually solving anything. It only brings redundancy. Who created the creator?
The universe does not evolve. Only living organisms evolve. You're mixing up two different things.

shredbaron:

It sure does not start from a human being called Adam or anything remotely resembling humans.

On that we agree then.

shredbaron:

For me, to say that the universe just happened or evolved takes every bit as much faith as believing that a supreme being clicked it all into place. I am still open to finding out if God did it all!

Why does saying 'I dont know' take as much faith as saying 'a supreme being clicked it all into place'. The first statement does not have any implicit assumptions, the second statement assumed a causal relationship between a supreme being and the universe as it is. If you add assumptions to a statement, you need either evidence or faith in these assumptions. As there is no evidence, you need faith.
In conclusion: the first statement does not require faith, the second statement requires faith. Faith in the existence of a supreme being and faith in the supreme being causing the universe.

shredbaron:

Once again good for you if you have enough evidence to arrive at this conclusion.

I do not need evidence. I do not profess a belief in anything. I am an agnostic atheist, meaning that I lack the belief in a supreme being and that I cannot have knowledge of the the existence of a supreme being on a metaphysical level. I can clearly say though that the specific God of the monotheistic religions does not exist, because that God is logically impossible.

shredbaron:

Do share it with me sometime. For me evolution does not explain how the first organism popped into existence enough to satisfy my curiosity. And, you also say it does not touch on creation. So where is the evidence? How did it all come about.

The Theory of Evolution does not deal with how life started, that is the field of inquiry of abiogenis. Evolution explains the mechanisms by which simpler life forms evolved over to to reach our current biodiversity. Maybe you should read a bit on evolution before you misrepresent it's content.
http://evolution.Berkeley.edu/ is an excellent starter.

shredbaron:

I think dropping the whole God concept merely because if a few contractions, real or assumed, before I figure out which they are will be premature. Like I said looking forward to seeing what conclusive evidence you have been able to collect.

I do not drop anything. I do not posses it to start with. The God concept only introduces more questions than it solves. Every time someone tries to explain the God concept, they come up with self-contradictory nonsense. Why would I need such a concept?

@nferyn

A supreme being implies that it exists to start with. This just  pushes the question a little further without actually solving anything. It only brings redundancy. Who created the creator?
The universe does not evolve. Only living organisms evolve. You're mixing up two different things.

Ok. But what do they evolve from? How did the one living molecule from which they evolved come to be? Or, how did the inorganic or non living thing from which the living molecule evolved come to be?

The Theory of Evolution does not deal with how life started, that is the field of inquiry of abiogenis. Evolution explains the mechanisms by which simpler life forms evolved over to to reach our current biodiversity.

I stand corrected. Abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions.  Once formed evolution takes over and it develops or evolves to an organism capable of independent life and reproduction. Note that these are theories, I suppose inspired by Dawin.

"Four and a half billion years ago the young planet Earth... was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas.  Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere.  Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together.  And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began... The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan [a one-celled animal].  Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas.  These early organisms were completely self-sufficient in their sea-water world.  They moved about their aquatic environment feeding on bacteria and other organisms... From these one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth" (from the Emmy award winning PBS NOVA film The Miracle of Life quoted in Hanegraaff, 1998, p. 70, emphasis in original).
 
Sound familia to you? Just as farfetched as the bible if not more so!

Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the “spontaneous action of Nature” into living animals.  His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but... Aristotle’s hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation or natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today.  This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology’s Theory of Evolution (1997, p. 105).

I said earlier that

For me, to say that the universe just happened or evolved takes every bit as much faith as believing that a supreme being clicked it all into place. I am still open to finding out if God did it all!

Your response:

Why does saying 'I don't know' take as much faith as saying 'a supreme being clicked it all into place'. The first statement does not have any implicit assumptions, the second statement assumed a causal relationship between a supreme being and the universe as it is. If you add assumptions to a statement, you need either evidence or faith in these assumptions. As there is no evidence, you need faith.
In conclusion: the first statement does not require faith, the second statement requires faith. Faith in the existence of a supreme being and faith in the supreme being causing the universe.

More like you don't care.  I, on the other hand, spend sometime pondering these issues. It is either that the world came about as postulated by Darwin, Aristotle and the rest of them, (unsubstantiated hypothesis which are to this day still tentative), or as discribed in the bible. Jury is still out! Bible however looking good so far!

This high-powered debate will be moved to it's own thread in due course! Keep on firing!

shredbaron:

@nferyn

Ok. But what do they evolve from? How did the one living molecule from which they evolved come to be? Or, how did the inorganic or non living thing from which the living molecule evolved come to be?

As I said, I don't know for sure. The Big Bang theory is currently best supported by the evidence, but there's a lot more uncertainty involved in the orgin of the universe than in the process of biological evolution.

shredbaron:

I stand corrected. Abiogenesis is the theory that life can arise spontaneously from non-life molecules under proper conditions. Once formed evolution takes over and it develops or evolves to an organism capable of independent life and reproduction. Note that these are theories, I suppose inspired by Dawin.

Abiogenesis is not directly inspired by Darwin. Abiogenesis is no theory, it is the study of how life arose on earth. A scientific theory is something completely different. I see that you use the colloquial meaning of theory. Maybe the late Stephen Jay Gould can clarify thing better than I can. I will quote the relevant paragraphs from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html (emphasis mine) Please go and read the whole article, it's well worth your time.

In the American vernacular, "theory" often means "imperfect fact"—part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus creationists can (and do) argue: evolution is "only" a theory, and intense debate now rages about many aspects of the theory. If evolution is less than a fact, and scientists can't even make up their minds about the theory, then what confidence can we have in it? Indeed, President Reagan echoed this argument before an evangelical group in Dallas when he said (in what I devoutly hope was campaign rhetoric): "Well, it is a theory. It is a scientific theory only, and it has in recent years been challenged in the world of science—that is, not believed in the scientific community to be as infallible as it once was."

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts do not go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them. Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's, but apples did not suspend themselves in mid-air, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from apelike ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other, yet to be discovered.

Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth, though creationists often do (and then attack us for a style of argument that they themselves favor). In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

shredbaron:

"Four and a half billion years ago the young planet Earth... was almost completely engulfed by the shallow primordial seas. Powerful winds gathered random molecules from the atmosphere. Some were deposited in the seas. Tides and currents swept the molecules together. And somewhere in this ancient ocean the miracle of life began... The first organized form of primitive life was a tiny protozoan [a one-celled animal]. Millions of protozoa populated the ancient seas. These early organisms were completely self-sufficient in their sea-water world. They moved about their aquatic environment feeding on bacteria and other organisms... From these one-celled organisms evolved all life on earth" (from the Emmy award winning PBS NOVA film The Miracle of Life quoted in Hanegraaff, 1998, p. 70, emphasis in original).

Sound familia to you? Just as farfetched as the bible if not more so!

It doesn't really sound familiar to me. In fact, it shows a misunderstanding on the orgin of life. It is incorrect to call the protozoa the first organised form of primitive life. Bacteria can carry that title with just as much right as protozoa. And not all life evolved from these protozoa, bacteria have a higher biomass than all other life combined. We even have evolved symbiotic ex-bacteria in our cells (mitochondria).

Anyway, the big difference is that this (incorrectly described) scenario may be far fetched, but it is based on solid evidence. The Bible is based on no evidence whatsoever.
And to be honest, common sense is not the best guide to judge science, after all, Quantum Physics is anything but common sense.

shredbaron:

Aristotle believed that decaying material could be transformed by the “spontaneous action of Nature” into living animals. His hypothesis was ultimately rejected, but... Aristotle’s hypothesis has been replaced by another spontaneous generation hypothesis, one that requires billions of years to go from the molecules of the universe to cells, and then, via random mutation or natural selection, from cells to the variety of organisms living today. This version, which postulates chance happenings eventually leading to the phenomenon of life, is biology’s Theory of Evolution (1997, p. 105).

This quote only shows that the author either has no idea what he is talking about or deliberately mirepresents the theory of evolution.
Evolution does not go from molecules to cells via random mutation or ,natural slection. Evolution starts with existing replicators. These replicators (which can and usually are be different from cells (read Dawkins The Selfish Gene for more in depth info - http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0192860925/qid=1135866080/sr=8-1/ref=sr_8_xs_ap_i1_xgl14/102-8137714-3567327?n=507846&s=books&v=glance )
It is certainly not random mutation or natural selection. Evolution is natural selection (and other mechanisms, such as sexual selection and gene flow) working on random mutations within a population of organisms. This is a fundamental characteristic of the Theory of Evolution. Chance is but a tiny element of evolution (via random mutation and copying infidelity)
This deliberate misrepresentation of the Theory of Evolution is most likely the work of a creationist. Deceit in the name of the Lord is probably not a sin in his eyes.

shredbaron:

More like you don't care. I, on the other hand, spend sometime pondering these issues. It is either that the world came about as postulated by Darwin, Aristotle and the rest of them, (unsubstantiated hypothesis which are to this day still tentative), or as discribed in the bible. Jury is still out! Bible however looking good so far!

Actually, I do care and contrary to what you think I too do spend some time pondering these issues. You did not really seem to read my statement:

nferyn:

Why does saying 'I don't know' take as much faith as saying 'a supreme being clicked it all into place'. The first statement does not have any implicit assumptions, the second statement assumed a causal relationship between a supreme being and the universe as it is. If you add assumptions to a statement, you need either evidence or faith in these assumptions. As there is no evidence, you need faith.
In conclusion: the first statement does not require faith, the second statement requires faith. Faith in the existence of a supreme being and faith in the supreme being causing the universe.

This clearly shows that it takes more faith to believe in a supreme being than saying I don't know (yet).
Your slur about unsubstantiated hypotheses, is just a slur. The Theory of Evolution is solid as a brick wall. I am yet to see the first piece of evidence refuting the theory and it really wouldn't be that hard to do: one fossil out of place, characteristics of organisms that do not fit the tree of life, ...
And please do read the article by Stephen Jay Gould, it can clear your misconceptions about scientific terms and concepts.

As I said, I don't know for sure. The Big Bang theory is currently best supported by the evidence, but there's a lot more uncertainty involved in the origin of the universe than in the process of biological evolution.

So you don't know for sure how the one basic cell which become the building block of life (by whatever means) came to be. You are however happy to accept that somehow it did.
That takes faith.  Maybe you believe if you research it thoroughly enough you would find evidence which is convincing enough. Until that day, you must be comfortable in your belief that it is not about a supreme being because there has got to be more evidence that it happened spontaneously.  I don,t think there is.

Abiogenesis is not directly inspired by Darwin. Abiogenesis is no theory, it is the study of how life arose on earth. A scientific theory is something completely different.  I see that you use the colloquial meaning of theory. Maybe the late Stephen Jay Gould can clarify thing better than I can. I will quote the relevant paragraphs from http://www.stephenjaygould.org/ctrl/gould_fact-and-theory.html (emphasis mine) Please go and read the whole article, it's well worth your time.

I will. Meanwhile how do you think a scientific study becomes a study? It starts with postulates and hypothesis by curious mortals like you and I.  They trace backward from what is available evidence (in this case)of life, making deductions as they proceed. In this day and age with technology for radiocarbon dating etc, one can reasonably believe that scientists can tell to a reasonable certainty how old fossils they dig up are.  Bones of dead creature from time immemorial, comparisons with currently living creatures to find differences which they may attribute to evolution or whatever.

My main concern: how likely is it that they find evidence of how the world originated for sure. You don't know my friend, because nobody can for sure! Zoology and botany teaches us that all creatures are grouped into kingoms, phylums, genus and species. They group similar behaving and looking creators together.  So apes and humans have very similar characteristics. They are still totally difference creatures. What are the odds that fossils found dating eons of years ago of apes might look similar to humans? Well don't have to go back in time to know that they would. They do now! Especially if all you are going by are bones and teeth.

How likely is it that they find the initial building block or one close enough to it for an accurate conclusion? They are all deductions my friend and in the end all the fluffing about says, is that it started somehow and proceeded thus. Was it initially a vacuum? Science tells us: ain't nothing gonna happen in a vacuum matey!

Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact...Moreover, "fact" does not mean "absolute certainty." The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world. Evolutionists make no claim for perpetual truth..

Need I say more?

I get that you believe in evolution and that Abiogenesis is the study that proves how life originated which you don't know too much about. My problem is that until I can believe how life actually started by whatever study there is, evolution is no use to me in deciding how the world can to be. That area of science is not at tangible or provable if you like as quantum Physics. It involves too much speculation and conjecture and there are bit of faith.

PS my remark about 'inspired by Darwin was meant to be a joke. (Bible being inspired by God and all that.)

shredbaron:

So you don't know for sure how the one basic cell which become the building block of life (by whatever means) came to be. You are however happy to accept that somehow it did.
That takes faith. Maybe you believe if you research it thoroughly enough you would find evidence which is convincing enough. Until that day, you must be comfortable in your belief that it is not about a supreme being because there has got to be more evidence that it happened spontaneously. I don,t think there is.

You continue to dodge the issue. Evolution has [b]nothing [/b]to do with the origin of the universe. Life did [b]not [/b]start from a basic cell. Have you read what I wrote about the definition of the Theory of Evolution you gave me? We do not know all the processes involved yet, but we are getting closer and closer. The scientific method is the [b]only [/b]way to increase our knowledge of the natural world fundamentally and yes, I believe in the results of the scientific method. If something becomes part of our scientific body of knowledge, it has already passed the tests of peer review and replication of all relevant test results. It passed the most relentless tests of critical inquiry.

shredbaron:

That takes faith. Maybe you believe if you research it thoroughly enough you would find evidence which is convincing enough. Until that day, you must be comfortable in your belief that it is not about a supreme being because there has got to be more evidence that it happened spontaneously. I don,t think there is.

No, that does not take faith, except maybe in the scientific method, but that method has an impeccable track record. All bad apples get thrown out eventually.
You on the other hand accept a supreme being by default and reason from that presupposition. This mode of thinking is all about faith. You are again inserting the god-of-the-gaps: if we don't know exactlly, to the letter, how it went...... goddidit. No evidence required. It is sloppy thinking and it explains nothing.
If you want to start your explanation from a supreme being, then you first have to define that supreme being in all it's properties, come up with a hypothesis of how that supreme being did his act of creation and test it against the evidenc, while actively trying to find evidence that falsifies your hypothesis. If you have done that, then your hypothesis might be promoted to the level of theory, but only after thousands of other scientist have tried their very best to destroy or falsify your theory.
That is how science works.

shredbaron:

I will. Meanwhile how do you think a scientific study becomes a study? It starts with postulates and hypothesis by curious mortals like you and I. They trace backward from what is available evidence (in this case)of life, making deductions as they proceed. In this day and age with technology for radiocarbon dating etc, one can reasonably believe that scientists can tell to a reasonable certainty how old fossils they dig up are. Bones of dead creature from time immemorial, comparisons with currently living creatures to find differences which they may attribute to evolution or whatever.

Correct. A lot of chips need to fall in exactly the right place for any explanatory idea to receive the status of theory. Only one chip that doesn't fall in the right place is enough to falsify the theory (or to introduce the need to adjust it)

shredbaron:

My main concern: how likely is it that they find evidence of how the world originated for sure. You don't know my friend, because nobody can for sure!

Depend on what you consider for sure. To quote Stephen Jay Gould again:

In science, "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.

That is about the level at which my certainty is: 99.99% sure, nearly sure, almost certainly sure, as sure as anybody can be.

shredbaron:

Zoology and botany teaches us that all creatures are grouped into kingoms, phylums, genus and species. They group similar behaving and looking creators together.

Actually systematics and cladistics have also evolved dramatically since They now use the M-DNA analysis in combination with the fossil record. A hgh degree of certainty in the grouping in the tree of life.

shredbaron:

So apes and humans have very similar characteristics. They are still totally difference creatures. What are the odds that fossils found dating eons of years ago of apes might look similar to humans? Well don't have to go back in time to know that they would. They do now! Especially if all you are going by are bones and teeth.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Can you ellaborate this argument?

shredbaron:

How likely is it that they find the initial building block or one close enough to it for an accurate conclusion? They are all deductions my friend and in the end all the fluffing about says, is that it started somehow and proceeded thus. Was it initially a vacuum? Science tells us: ain't nothing going to happen in a vacuum matey!

What are you trying to get at?

shredbaron:

Need I say more?

Actually, yes. the competing (if you can even use that word) explanations have not even reached the level of a full scientific hypothesis, let alone a theory.

shredbaron:

I get that you believe in evolution and that Abiogenesis is the study that proves how life originated which you don't know too much about. My problem is that until I can believe how life actually started by whatever study there is, evolution is no use to me in deciding how the world can to be. That area of science is not at tangible or provable if you like as quantum Physics. It involves too much speculation and conjecture and there are bit of faith.

Have you understood a word of what I've been writing? What speculation and conjecture are you talking about? The speculation and conjecture only exists in the heads of creationists and their ilk. Science has progressed immensely since Darwin.

PS my remark about 'inspired by Darwin was meant to be a joke. (Bible being inspired by God and all that.)

It may indeed, at the same level

Quite an interesting debate. First for us to able to accurately determine whether God gave man "Freewill" we have to determine two things. Firstly, we have to determine whether there is a God and secondly whether this God created man and by extension, whether he has to ability to bequeath anything at all on man let alone free will. @Shredbaron you contend and I quote, that

I think there is a lot of evidence to support the fact that God gave man free will. One obvious one is Him putting a tree of which fruit man was never to eat in the garden of eden. This gave man the option to do so at any time if he should choose to. This was at the very beginning of time. Why, if he already knew how this will end? Where it starts getting dicey for me is the all knowing concept that people keep throwing around. To what extent is that the case?

Brings me back to my first question: IS there a God? If there is, what is the evidence that he created a garden and put man into it? Where was the geographical location of the garden of eden? What evidence exists that such a garden existed? The Bible in Genesis Chapter 3: 11. says and I quote

God asked, "Who told you that you were naked? Did you eat fruit from the tree from which I commanded you not to eat?

Genesis Chapter 3: 14

The lord God said to the serpant, because you have done this, a curse will be placed on you........

Genesis Chapter 3: 21

The lord God said: The man has become like one of us, he knows Good and evil. We must keep him from eating of the tree of light so that he will not live forever

(All scripture quoted here is for reference purposes and serves only the purposes of this debate and are taken from the Everyday study edition of the bible).

This does not seem to me like a god who knew before hand that the serpant will tempt the woman who will in turn convince her husband to eat of the fruit let alone one who had foreknowledge that man will fall to that temptation.

On the other part, you do not command somebody who has free will. You ask the person. For instance, if I want my colleague at work to get me a cup of coffee, I ask him and quite nicely. I will say to him knowing that he could refuse "Fred, could you please get me a cup of coffee?" To which he can either say yes or no. That, is someone with free will. But when I want to ask my househelp to do just the same thing for me I will tell her in no uncertain terms infact, I will command her to "go bring me a cup of coffee". Now that doesn't seem like free will. Free comes "without liens or encumberances" without fear of reprisals or sanctions. Now if my house help refuses to give me my coffee, I might decide to cut down her salary but in the case of my colleague, if he refuses, I will take it in stride and look for alternatives. Now, if God gave Adam free will to decide what he wants to do as and at when he wants to there will be no liens attached to it. Am I making sense?

It seems to me, that God does not have free will to give and as such could not have given it. There are several logical examples that can be given regarding this issue. If it was his to give, he would have given it to Adam, his first human creation.

All friend of mine took me up on my coffee example and I wish to state here that it is possible to take that example out of context. Now here is what I meant. I have a house help and I can command her at all points to do my bidding while she is still my house help that is. If she decides to leave my employ, that is besides the point. The point is that while she is still in my employ, she will only do my bidding. Now if she decides to leave as a result of my "commanding her" that is one of the liens. Which means that she did not have free will while she was in my employ. As long as she is under my roof as my house help she does my bidding without question. Now that is not free will.

thank you for taking this back to the original question of how predestination and freewill can co-exsit.

I'm excited about replying to this... I actually vaguely understand it because God lots of time gives me wisdom.... So, How can predestination and freewill co-exist?

Simply because God created us.

Let me explain more. If i were to write a fictional story. So i created all the characters. I created and gave them their personality, how they think, feel, discover new things, their reactions, everything about them. Let's say that i had the power to give them souls and freewill, and i did. Now, I understand the characters so completely that i understand, i know how they will act in every single imaginable situation. I do not tell them to do it. I simply understand that they will.

This is God. He created us, he gave us everything, our personalities, how we think, feel, discover new things, everything. God understands us so completely that in every single situation, he knows how each individual soul he created would act.He, in no way, forces us to do them[i] God simply understands us so well, that he knows what we will do[/i] . God knew, for instance, that if Chinua Achebe existed when he did, he would write the book "Things Fall Apart" and God knew, that if he wrote that book, eventually, my school would have it a requirement to read it. And God knew, that i would be in a class that had to read it, and that i would have to research about Nigeria to complete my school project.  God knew that i would type in, "Nigeria culture-religion" in google, click on a site that led me to this current one. and  God knew that it would inveterate me so much, that i would have to get an account and post my opinions. Now, I'm not saying that the reason God put Chinua Achebe on the earth at the time he did, was so i could post this. But you never know, only God knows.

This is how freewill and predestination can co-exist. God understands how we will act, so he puts us in certain places in certain times with certain people, because he knows how we will act. And he knows that the result of our life in this particular place/time/etc... will benefit his Kingdom, and his glory the most.

and yes, i know that after reading that you may ask, why God would create people who he know will end up going to Hell, and i will try to answer that the best i can, right now, so we don't have to go and create another thread that will get us nowhere  .

No one can truly answer why God created people who would go to Hell. All you know, is that God is always just, but he is also merciful, all-knowing and loves us so much that he gave us Jesus, and above all, God is always right. So you must say that if it is true that God is just, merciful, all-knowing, loving, right, and it is also true that he created people who he knows will go to Hell, you must eventually conclued that either God has a reason, and that reason is just, merciful, loving, right, and good for us in the long term (all-knowing, God knows the future) or you must conclude that you yourself, as a human, with the limited knowledge capacity of a human, is right, and a God that is just, merciful, all-knowing, loving and always right, is wrong.

Hope that clears that up. 

AbbeyMarie:

[SNIP]
This is how freewill and predestination can co-exist. God understands how we will act, so he puts us in certain places in certain times with certain people, because he knows how we will act. And he knows that the result of our life in this particular place/time/etc... will benefit his Kingdom, and his glory the most.

That's a nice way to avoid the issue. Free will is an illusion in this context. The future is predetermined as all future acts are known by God beforehand. There is no way to avoid your faith.

AbbeyMarie:

and yes, i know that after reading that you may ask, why God would create people who he know will end up going to Hell, and i will try to answer that the best i can, right now, so we don't have to go and create another thread that will get us nowhere .

It would get us nowhere because you would never question the properties of God. You'd retreat into ignorance by saying that we cannot fully understand the nature of God.

AbbeyMarie:

No one can truly answer why God created people who would go to Hell. All you know, is that God is always just, but he is also merciful, all-knowing and loves us so much that he gave us Jesus, and above all, God is always right. So you must say that if it is true that God is just, merciful, all-knowing, loving, right, and it is also true that he created people who he knows will go to Hell, you must eventually conclued that either God has a reason, and that reason is just, merciful, loving, right, and good for us in the long term (all-knowing, God knows the future) or you must conclude that you yourself, as a human, with the limited knowledge capacity of a human, is right, and a God that is just, merciful, all-knowing, loving and always right, is wrong.

Hope that clears that up.

No it doesn't. You change the meaning of just, merciful, loving and right to make it fit your preconceived ideas about God.
If God is all seeing (omniscient), all powerful (omnipotent) and all good (omnibenevolent), then:
1. Free will cannot exist because omniscience implies predestination
2. Evil in the world would be impossible because an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God by definition would not allow such a thing
3. the world would not exist becasue an omnipotent God would limit his posibilities by creating something outside of himself

nferyn:

That's a nice way to avoid the issue. Free will is an illusion in this context. The future is predetermined as all future acts are known by God beforehand. There is no way to avoid your faith.

How is free will an illusion in this context? in this context God knows/understands what we will do. but he doesn't command us to do this. he allows us to do it.

When you say "There is no way to avoid your faith." what are you saying? Sorry, but i really don't understand.

nferyn:

It would get us nowhere because you would never question the properties of God. You'd retreat into ignorance by saying that we cannot fully understand the nature of God.

Yes, actually many people do question the properties of God. An acquaintance questioning exactly why God creates people who he knows will go to Hell, is what got me started thinking about how free will and predestination can co-exist. Why shouldn't we question the properties of God? That would be like not trying to fully understand your personal beliefs. and that would be ignorant, because not understanding what you believe. makes no sense. That's actually one reason why this site invigorates me so much. i love it, because it allows me to question my own beliefs, to strengthen them, and learn more about others beliefs.

I do not retreat into ignorance by saying we cannot fully understand the nature of God. I simply come to the conclusion that our knowledge  cannot compare to an all-knowing God's!

nferyn:

No it doesn't. You change the meaning of just, merciful, loving and right to make it fit your preconceived ideas about God.
If God is all seeing (omniscient), all powerful (omnipotent) and all good (omnibenevolent), then:
1. Free will cannot exist because omniscience implies predestination
2. Evil in the world would be impossible because an omnibenevolent and omnipotent God by definition would not allow such a thing
3. the world would not exist because an omnipotent God would limit his possibilities by creating something outside of himself

1. How does omniscience imply predestination? Doesn't it imply that he knows everything, understands everything? Which doesn't mean that he forces us to do anything. It simply means that he knows everything! If that is all it means, i can't see why he wouldn't allow people to choose what they want to do.
2. Why wouldn't he allow sin on Earth? He doesn't allow it in Heaven and that is why after we all sin, we need to receive Jesus Christ so, we can be perfect before God, so we can go to Heaven. But on earth... Earth is not Heaven, so why is there a reason he wouldn't allow sin on Earth? He allows sin in Hell.
3. How do you know that would limit his possibilities? From your knowledge and your perception, maybe it would. but, if he is all-knowing, maybe he knows that it wouldn't limit his possibilities. maybe it would create more. If it did limit his possibilities... he might not want those possibilities.

Oh, and nferyn, i would just like to say, that i am so glad you participate in the discusions, you always bring such... intensity to them! It is so fun talking with you, (and everyone here too).

I love hearing everyone's ideas and opinions. How they differentiate so much. I am so thankful, that we can express our opinions freely and openly without fear of being... harassed or even murdered like people can be.

AbbeyMarie:

How is free will an illusion in this context? in this context God knows/understands what we will do. but he doesn't command us to do this. he allows us to do it.

He knows beforehand what you are going to do. This means that before you even do it, before you make any decision, you can only do what he knows you will do. You have no choice, you only have the illusion of having a choice.

AbbeyMarie:

When you say "There is no way to avoid your faith." what are you saying? Sorry, but i really don't understand.

See above

AbbeyMarie:

Yes, actually many people do question the properties of God. An acquaintance questioning exactly why God creates people who he knows will go to Hell, is what got me started thinking about how free will and predestination can co-exist.

Exactly, the creation of free will does not make sense for an omniscient, all-seeing God. It is in contradiction with his property of omniscience.

AbbeyMarie:

Why shouldn't we question the properties of God? That would be like not trying to fully understand your personal beliefs. and that would be ignorant, because not understanding what you believe. makes no sense. That's actually one reason why this site invigorates me so much. i love it, because it allows me to question my own beliefs, to strengthen them, and learn more about others beliefs.

I have no intention whatsoever to change what people believe. If only they can reason thoroughly about the foundations of their belief, I would call it a success. What I dislike is the theism by default, where people ascribe al kinds of evil moral characteristics to atheists. This is uncalled for. It's already difficult enough for Nigerians to deviate from the norm, they don't need to be treated as social outcasts for a perfectly reasonable position. If I can - in my small way - help accomplish that, I'm happy.
I think you can have interesting discussions with your fellow Christian chrisd.

AbbeyMarie:

I do not retreat into ignorance by saying we cannot fully understand the nature of God. I simply come to the conclusion that our knowledge cannot compare to an all-knowing God's!

It is [/b]a retreat into ignorance. You say beforehand that you cannot fully understand the nature of God.

AbbeyMarie:

1. How does omniscience imply predestination? Doesn't it imply that he knows everything, understands everything? Which doesn't mean that he forces us to do anything. It simply means that he knows everything! If that is all it means, i can't see why he wouldn't allow people to choose what they want to do.

Exactly for the reason I posted above. If he knows the choice before the choice is made, there is no choice.

AbbeyMarie:

2. Why wouldn't he allow sin on Earth? He doesn't allow it in [b]Heaven and that is why after we all sin, we need to receive Jesus Christ so, we can be perfect before God, so we can go to Heaven. But on earth... Earth is not Heaven, so why is there a reason he wouldn't allow sin on Earth? He allows sin in Hell.

If God is omnibenevolent, he would not allow any of his creatures to go through torment and pain. He would do everything he can to avoid that. If he is omnipotent, he can prevent suffering and pain. Fact is, people suffer. Either God is not omnibenevolent or he is not omnipotent.

AbbeyMarie:

3. How do you know that would limit his possibilities? From your knowledge and your perception, maybe it would. but, if he is all-knowing, maybe he knows that it wouldn't limit his possibilities. maybe it would create more. If it did limit his possibilities... he might not want those possibilities.

This is a difficult discussion that can take a thread of it's own. If you like, you can create a thread on that. I will expand the argument, but it will take quite some time to do so. Just let me know.

AbbeyMarie:

Oh, and nferyn, i would just like to say, that i am so glad you participate in the discusions, you always bring such... intensity to them! It is so fun talking with you, (and everyone here too).

The pleasure is entirely mine, m'lady

AbbeyMarie:

I love hearing everyone's ideas and opinions. How they differentiate so much. I am so thankful, that we can express our opinions freely and openly without fear of being... harassed or even murdered like people can be.

Kudos to Seun. This forum is a shining example of how people with very different backgrounds and convictions can have an open, polite debate about practically everything.

nferyn:

He knows beforehand what you are going to do. This means that before you even do it, before you make any decision, you can only do what he knows you will do. You have no choice, you only have the illusion of having a choice.

How is THAT and illusion? I am not grasping your argument on this, and i don't know why.

Because i agree with you completely, as  you said it, you "only do what he knows you will do." But even you are not saying that you do what he chooses for you to do. 

He only knows what you will do. and that does not create an illusion of freewill. it simply says that you choose what you do, God just understands your soul, who you are, so completely that he knows what it is you will end up choosing.

nferyn:

Exactly, the creation of free will does not make sense for an omniscient, all-seeing God. It is in contradiction with his property of omniscience.

When you were born, as a child. You did not understand anything around you. As you grow older, you learn things, but still, there is so so much you don't understand, when you are an adult. you know many things, and yet there's alot you still don't understand. When you die. there are so many things you never got the chance to learn or understand. All our lives, we learn and learn and learn and learn. People discover new things every day that have never been discovered before. Knowledge seems to be unlimited so we will never be able to know it all.

and yet simply because we don't understand why someone who is omniscient does something, you say it is impossible. that it's contradictory. But he knows everything. Do you not understand that? He. Knows. Everything. and we do not. So why is that impossible? Why is that contradictory?

nferyn:

I have no intention whatsoever to change what people believe. If only they can reason thoroughly about the foundations of their belief, I would call it a success.

Why do we believe in wind? We can't prove it exists, except that we can feel it, and it moves things. Other than that, we can't prove it exists, we just have to put faith in the fact that we can feel it.

Why do i believe in God? I cannot prove God exists, except that i can feel God, inside my heart, and God i can see God changing people. i just have to put faith in the fact that i feel God everyday in my life. and i have to put faith in the fact that i can see God change people.

If someone never left their house, and didn't have a TV. but someone called them on their phone and was telling them about the wind. They might not believe it existed.  They might say, no matter how many people can testify that it exists, unless you can give me solid proof, i won't believe in it. Until they feel wind for themself, or see the proof, they will not believe in it. But we have no proof for wind, except that we can feel it, and see it move things.

Someone who has never felt or seen how God works in someone probably won't believe in God. Unless they see proof, or feel God themselves.

I actually must tell you, that it is truly obvious to me, that God wants you, right now. I mean, you are on here every single day, debating the existence of him, who he is, the affects of him etc... You have already taken the first step into discovering who he is. Although you are not convinced of who God is, who Jesus is, let alone God's existence, you are at least have not closed your heart completely to the possibility of him. There are so many people who would have seen one of these discussions, left the website and never come back. I almost think that you might.... want to be proved wrong? i don't know about that, but i can say that just by listening to and reading all this, you have allowed God in your life, it is truly now your choice on whether you listen to it.

nferyn:
What I dislike is the theism by default, where people ascribe al kinds of evil moral characteristics to atheists. This is uncalled for.

You are absolutely correct, it is uncalled for because it is nonsense. We all are evil, and evil moral characteristics come from Christians just as much, and probably as often as any one else... to say that they Started from? that their origins are from atheists? Well... that makes no sense in the least.

nferyn:

He knows beforehand what you are going to do. This means that before you even do it, before you make any decision, you can only do what he knows you will do. You have no choice, you only have the illusion of having a choice.

How is THAT and illusion? I am not grasping your argument on this, and i don't know why.

Because i agree with you completely, as  you said it, you "only do what he knows you will do." But even you are not saying that you do what he chooses for you to do. 

He only knows what you will do. and that does not create an illusion of freewill. it simply says that you choose what you do, God just understands your soul, who you are, so completely that he knows what it is you will end up choosing.

nferyn:

Exactly, the creation of free will does not make sense for an omniscient, all-seeing God. It is in contradiction with his property of omniscience.

When you were born, as a child. You did not understand anything around you. As you grow older, you learn things, but still, there is so so much you don't understand, when you are an adult. you know many things, and yet there's alot you still don't understand. When you die. there are so many things you never got the chance to learn or understand. All our lives, we learn and learn and learn and learn. People discover new things every day that have never been discovered before. Knowledge seems to be unlimited so we will never be able to know it all.

and yet simply because we don't understand why someone who is omniscient does something, you say it is impossible. that it's contradictory. But he knows everything. Do you not understand that? He. Knows. Everything. and we do not. So why is that impossible? Why is that contradictory?

nferyn:

I have no intention whatsoever to change what people believe. If only they can reason thoroughly about the foundations of their belief, I would call it a success.

Why do we believe in wind? We can't prove it exists, except that we can feel it, and it moves things. Other than that, we can't prove it exists, we just have to put faith in the fact that we can feel it.

Why do i believe in God? I cannot prove God exists, except that i can feel God, inside my heart, and God i can see God changing people. i just have to put faith in the fact that i feel God everyday in my life. and i have to put faith in the fact that i can see God change people.

If someone never left their house, and didn't have a TV. but someone called them on their phone and was telling them about the wind. They might not believe it existed.  They might say, no matter how many people can testify that it exists, unless you can give me solid proof, i won't believe in it. Until they feel wind for themself, or see the proof, they will not believe in it. But we have no proof for wind, except that we can feel it, and see it move things.

Someone who has never felt or seen how God works in someone probably won't believe in God. Unless they see proof, or feel God themselves.

I actually must tell you, that it is truly obvious to me, that God wants you, right now. I mean, you are on here every single day, debating the existence of him, who he is, the affects of him etc... You have already taken the first step into discovering who he is. Although you are not convinced of who God is, who Jesus is, let alone God's existence, you are at least have not closed your heart completely to the possibility of him. There are so many people who would have seen one of these discussions, left the website and never come back. I almost think that you might.... want to be proved wrong? i don't know about that, but i can say that just by listening to and reading all this, you have allowed God in your life, it is truly now your choice on whether you listen to it.

nferyn:
What I dislike is the theism by default, where people ascribe al kinds of evil moral characteristics to atheists. This is uncalled for.

I completely concur with you on this. It is nonsense to think that evil moral characteristics started from, or origin from atheists, because it origin from all of us, Christians included. Unless you are using the definition of assigning as a quality or characteristic when you said the word ascribe... because in that case it's true, but it's not only a quality of atheists, Evil is a quality of all humans from the first time we sin. But in either use of the word 'ascribe', i still agree with you that it is very uncalled for to ascribe all kinds of evil moral characteristics to atheists.

nferyn:

It's already difficult enough for Nigerians to deviate from the norm, they don't need to be treated as social outcasts for a perfectly reasonable position. If I can - in my small way - help accomplish that, I'm happy.

I actually must confess that i, myself, am not Nigerian, nor do i live in Nigeria. i was researching about Nigerian culture for my English Final when i found this website. (We are reading the book, "Things Fall Apart" ) So, i was not aware that it is difficult for Nigerians to deviate from the norm. And i agree that it is senseless to be treated as social outcasts for a position on any subject, because... ha! It's Senseless because we Have. Free Will!!!!!!! to choose to have any position on any subject we want!

nferyn:

I think you can have interesting discussions with your fellow Christian chrisd.

By interesting, do you mean that he and i disagree on things? Because, i am not saying that i am 100% right on this, this is just what i believe and why i believe it. infact i am probably wrong on many things, just as we all are.

Do you know of any threads that Chrisd is a prominent debater on? I love interesting discussions (exspecally on this website).... they are so exhilarating!

nferyn:
It [b]is [/b]a retreat into ignorance. You say beforehand that you cannot fully understand the nature of God.

So i didn't agree with you on this, so i looked up the word ignorance on-line... sometimes when i have the definition of words right next to me, i understand things much better. and i guess you are right. i technically do retreat into ignorance. because my conclusion is that i am not educated enough to understand the nature of God.

but this is true. I can't understand the nature of God. I haven't even come close to learning all the possible things you could learn Inside! the realm of human knowledge... let alone in the realm of God's Knowledge. and neither can anyone who is only human either.

this was originally referring to the comment you had made on when i preparing to say why God would create people who he could predict with 100% accuracy, would go to hell. and so yes, i am retreating into ignorance when i say that i can't understand the nature of God, that you can't understand it, that no one can understand it. But i only retreat into that ignorance, because I, along with everyother human being, am ignorant. I am only stating the truth.

nferyn:

If God is omnibenevolent, he would not allow any of his creatures to go through torment and pain. He would do everything he can to avoid that. If he is omnipotent, he can prevent suffering and pain. Fact is, people suffer. Either God is not omnibenevolent or he is not omnipotent.

I'm sorry, but i see absolutely no facts in that except for that people suffer. The rest is purely opinion. It is your opinion that God being omnibenevolent would not allow his creatures to go through torment and pain. That is not a fact. Nor is that if God is omnipotent, he would prevent suffering and pain. They are both very eloquently said opinions, to the point that at first glance, you do not recognize that it actually is an opinion.

Yes, it is my, 'opinion' that God can be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and allow people to suffer. i do not have facts.

this is because we are both ignorant. We both do not understand enough, we both do not know everything. We only know that God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and also omniscience! God says that he gives free will, being omnibenevolent, it must be true. So the fact that he is omniscience doesn't change that.

nferyn:

This is a difficult discussion that can take a thread of it's own. If you like, you can create a thread on that. I will expand the argument, but it will take quite some time to do so. Just let me know.

I actually would like to create a thread on that... however i have never created a thread before... what would i call it? Like "Does Creating humans limit God's future possibilities" ? is that a good title or is there a better phrased question that you can think of?


Also, i would like to ask you a question.... that's off topic. As i mentioned before, I'm researching Nigerian culture because my English class is reading the book "Things Fall Apart" written by Chinua Achebe. In it they mention that when twins are born they murder them. Do you know why? Also, in the book, they talk about the titles of each clan. Do you know, by any chance, how they Acquire the titles? If you by any chance know the answer to these questions, i would greatly appreciate it. =)

=)

=)

=)

Science does not proceed by majority vote among scientists.

Evolution is a Fact and a Theory

The existence of biological evolution is a fact. It can be demonstrated today and the historical evidence for its occurrence in the past is overwhelming. On the other hand there are questions about the mechanism of the observed changes... how did evolution occur? We readily admit that we are less certain of the exact mechanism of evolution; there are several theories of the mechanism of evolution.
-- "Theory" means "imperfect fact"--part of a hierarchy of confidence running downhill from fact to theory to hypothesis to guess. Thus the power of the creationist argument: evolution is "only" a theory is false.
-- Well evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. Facts are the world's data. Theories are structures of ideas that explain and interpret facts. Facts don't go away when scientists debate rival theories to explain them.
-- Einstein's theory of gravitation replaced Newton's in this century, but apples didn't suspend themselves in midair, pending the outcome. And humans evolved from ape-like ancestors whether they did so by Darwin's proposed mechanism or by some other yet to be discovered.
-- Moreover, "fact" doesn't mean "absolute certainty". The final proofs of logic and mathematics flow deductively from stated premises and achieve certainty only because they are not about the empirical world.
-- In science "fact" can only mean "confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional consent." I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.
-- Scientists have always acknowledged how far we are from completely understanding the mechanisms (theory) by which evolution (fact) occurred. Darwin continually emphasized the difference between his two great and separate accomplishments: establishing the fact of evolution, and proposing a theory--natural selection--to explain the mechanism of evolution.
But what is established beyond reasonable doubt, and what needs further study, about evolution.
1) Evolution as a process that has always gone on in the history of the earth can be doubted only by those who are ignorant or resistant of the evidence. By contrast, the mechanisms that bring evolution about certainly need study and clarification.
Nothing in Biology Makes Sense Except in the Light of Evolution.
One has to state clearly that evolution is a fact, not theory, and that what is at issue within biology are questions of details of the process and the relative importance of different mechanisms of evolution.
The facts
1)It is a fact that the earth with liquid water, is more than 3.6 billion years old.
2)It is a fact that cellular life has been around for at least half of that period and that organized multicellular life is at least 800 million years old.
3)It is a fact that major life forms now on earth were not at all represented in the past. There were no birds or mammals 250 million years ago.
4)It is a fact that major life forms of the past are no longer living. There used to be dinosaurs and Pithecanthropus, and there are none now.
5)It is a fact that all living forms come from previous living forms. Therefore, all present forms of life arose from ancestral forms that were different.
No person who pretends to any understanding of the natural world can deny these facts any more than she or he can deny that the earth is round, rotates on its axis, and revolves around the sun.

We also need to distinguish between facts that are easy to demonstrate and those that are more circumstantial. Examples of evolution that are readily apparent include the fact that modern populations are evolving and the fact that two closely related species share a common ancestor. The evidence that Homo sapiens and chimpanzees share a recent common ancestor falls into this category. There is so much evidence in support of this aspect of primate evolution that it qualifies as a fact by any common definition of the word "fact."
In other cases the available evidence is less strong. For example, the relationships of some of the major phyla are still being worked out. Also, the statement that all organisms have descended from a single common ancestor is strongly supported by the available evidence, and there is no opposing evidence. However, it is not yet appropriate to call this a "fact" since there are reasonable alternatives.

So enormous, ramifying, and consistent has the evidence for evolution become that if anyone could now disprove it, I should have my conception of the orderliness of the universe so shaken as to lead me to doubt even my own existence. If you like, then, I will grant you that in an absolute sense evolution is not a fact, or rather, that it is no more a fact than that you are hearing or reading these words.

Evolution is useless, without practical application.

* Diseases and pests evolve resistance to the drugs and pesticides we use against them. Evolutionary theory is used in the field of resistance management in both medicine and agriculture (Bull and Wichman 2001).
* Evolutionary theory is used to manage fisheries for greater yields (Conover and Munch 2002).
* Knowledge of the evolution of parasite virulence in human populations can help guide public health policy (Galvani 2003).

AbbeyMarie:

He only knows what you will do. and that does not create an illusion of freewill. it simply says that you choose what you do, God just understands your soul, who you are, so completely that he knows what it is you will end up choosing.

If he knows what you will do, you have no choice but to do what he knows, otherwise he wouldn't know. The understanding you talk about is not omniscience. Omniscience implies knowledge of the future. Knowledge of the future implies predetermination. predetermination contradicts free will.

AbbeyMarie:

When you were born, as a child. You did not understand anything around you. As you grow older, you learn things, but still, there is so so much you don't understand, when you are an adult. you know many things, and yet there's alot you still don't understand. When you die. there are so many things you never got the chance to learn or understand. All our lives, we learn and learn and learn and learn. People discover new things every day that have never been discovered before. Knowledge seems to be unlimited so we will never be able to know it all.

and yet simply because we don't understand why someone who is omniscient does something, you say it is impossible. that it's contradictory. But he knows everything. Do you not understand that? He. Knows. Everything. and we do not. So why is that impossible? Why is that contradictory?

Omniscience is determined in the cognitive sphere of humans. It is a concept that was invented by humans, it is a property with a specific meaning (all knowing). That concept has certain implications. One of these implications is predestination and thus the absence of free will. Now, perhaps the omniscience of God is different of our human concept of omniscience. If this is the case, we have nothing to say about it. It is beyond our understanding. If this goes for all his properties (omnipotence, omnibenevolence) we cannot talk about God at all. He is totally unknowable.

AbbeyMarie:

Why do we believe in wind? We can't prove it exists, except that we can feel it, and it moves things. Other than that, we can't prove it exists, we just have to put faith in the fact that we can feel it.

No we do not have to believe in wind. We have a very good understanding of what wind is. We can detect it, we can predict it's patterns and we can know it's properties. There is absolutely no faith required.

AbbeyMarie:

Why do i believe in God? I cannot prove God exists, except that i can feel God, inside my heart, and God i can see God changing people. i just have to put faith in the fact that i feel God everyday in my life. and i have to put faith in the fact that i can see God change people.

This is a subjective feeling you attribute to God because you interpret that feeling within a theistic framework. Nobody is capable of objectifying that feeling and make it communicable to anybody outside that framework, because the framework is different, the concepts used are different and there is no mapping between these frameworks. You call it God, I call it a mass delusion.

AbbeyMarie:

If someone never left their house, and didn't have a TV. but someone called them on their phone and was telling them about the wind. They might not believe it existed. They might say, no matter how many people can testify that it exists, unless you can give me solid proof, i won't believe in it. Until they feel wind for themself, or see the proof, they will not believe in it. But we have no proof for wind, except that we can feel it, and see it move things.

This is not true. Wind is a phenomenon that can be tested and operationalised very easily.

AbbeyMarie:

Someone who has never felt or seen how God works in someone probably won't believe in God. Unless they see proof, or feel God themselves.

This is self-referential. I will feel the same thing but interpret it differently and label it differently.

AbbeyMarie:

I actually must tell you, that it is truly obvious to me, that God wants you, right now. I mean, you are on here every single day, debating the existence of him, who he is, the affects of him etc... You have already taken the first step into discovering who he is. Although you are not convinced of who God is, who Jesus is, let alone God's existence, you are at least have not closed your heart completely to the possibility of him. There are so many people who would have seen one of these discussions, left the website and never come back. I almost think that you might.... want to be proved wrong? i don't know about that, but i can say that just by listening to and reading all this, you have allowed God in your life, it is truly now your choice on whether you listen to it.

As I did not grow up in a theistic environment, I find it extremely hard to understand why people believe in God. A majority of the human population does. Many are outright ignorant, but many are intelligent human beings. I want to understand where that comes from. Intellectually, it's so far of the scale that there must be another reason. I will probably not find it, but I keep looking.
My parents did grow up as good Roman Catholics, but they have been dealt such nasty blows by that church that they left. My father is extremely anti-catholic and feels nauseous every time he's close to a man of the cloth. I do not have that negative feeling towards religious people, I just don't understand them.

AbbeyMarie:

You are absolutely correct, it is uncalled for because it is nonsense. We all are evil, and evil moral characteristics come from Christians just as much, and probably as often as any one else... to say that they Started from? that their origins are from atheists? Well... that makes no sense in the least.

I am very glad to find a Christian who's not into the fire-and-brimstone approach and who does not need to attribute evil to the others and especially to atheists. You make my day.

AbbeyMarie:

How is THAT and illusion? I am not grasping your argument on this, and i don't know why.
[SNIP]

See above. It follows out of the definition of omniscience.

AbbeyMarie:

I actually must confess that i, myself, am not Nigerian, nor do i live in Nigeria. i was researching about Nigerian culture for my English Final when i found this website. (We are reading the book, "Things Fall Apart" ) So, i was not aware that it is difficult for Nigerians to deviate from the norm. And i agree that it is senseless to be treated as social outcasts for a position on any subject, because... ha! It's Senseless because we Have. Free Will!!!!!!! to choose to have any position on any subject we want!

Neither am I, my wife is Nigerian and we do not live in Nigeria, but I do have some knowledge about Nigerian mores
I also agree that we have free will, but not for the reason you do. Anyway, for what it's worth, even if we wouldn't have free will, it would appear to us we have free will, so why not live as if we have it

AbbeyMarie:

By interesting, do you mean that he and i disagree on things? Because, i am not saying that i am 100% right on this, this is just what i believe and why i believe it. infact i am probably wrong on many things, just as we all are.

I wouldn't know, but he's definitely against the anti-intellectual position some Christians on this board take. That's also a reason why, in general, I like it more to debate with Muslims than with Christians, they never consider ignorance a virtue.

AbbeyMarie:

Do you know of any threads that Chrisd is a prominent debater on? I love interesting discussions (exspecally on this website).... they are so exhilarating!

He's one of the newer members. Just look up his profile and look at what he posted.

AbbeyMarie:

So i didn't agree with you on this, so i looked up the word ignorance on-line... sometimes when i have the definition of words right next to me, i understand things much better. and i guess you are right. i technically do retreat into ignorance. because my conclusion is that i am not educated enough to understand the nature of God.

This is the only sensible theistic position I can think of, agnostic theism: you cannot possibly have knowledge about the nature of God, but you can believe in him. All attempts to understand the nature of God are futile. This would probably be my position if I grew up in a theistic environment, but I didn't.
I'm an agnostic atheist. I cannot have knowledge about a supreme being, either positive or negative, but I do not believe in a supreme being.
I cannot have faith in a supreme being, because faith is belief without evidence. I could believe in a supreme being, if there were evidence indicating his existence beyong a reasonable doubt. There is no such evidence.

AbbeyMarie:

but this is true. I can't understand the nature of God. I haven't even come close to learning all the possible things you could learn Inside! the realm of human knowledge... let alone in the realm of God's Knowledge. and neither can anyone who is only human either.

this was originally referring to the comment you had made on when i preparing to say why God would create people who he could predict with 100% accuracy, would go to hell. and so yes, i am retreating into ignorance when i say that i can't understand the nature of God, that you can't understand it, that no one can understand it. But i only retreat into that ignorance, because I, along with everyother human being, am ignorant. I am only stating the truth.

Ok. Your point being?

AbbeyMarie:

I'm sorry, but i see absolutely no facts in that except for that people suffer. The rest is purely opinion. It is your opinion that God being omnibenevolent would not allow his creatures to go through torment and pain. That is not a fact. Nor is that if God is omnipotent, he would prevent suffering and pain. They are both very eloquently said opinions, to the point that at first glance, you do not recognize that it actually is an opinion.

It follows directly from the meaning of the words omnibenevolent and omnipotent. If you want to remove omnipotence and omnibenevolence out of the human cognitive sphere, then you may have a point. If he is omnibenevolent, he would do all in his power to prevent suffereing and pain. Omnibenevolence is all-goodness, the supreme goodness, what ensures no bad exists if he is omnipotent as well.
Bad exists. This means that either he is not omnipotent and/or he is not omnibenevolent. It could also mean that omnipotence and omnibenevolence in the context of God are different than in the human context., but then we cannot understand or communicate about these properties of God.

AbbeyMarie:

Yes, it is my, 'opinion' that God can be both omnibenevolent and omnipotent, and allow people to suffer. i do not have facts.

This is false if we use the human meaning of omnipotence and omnibenevolence.

AbbeyMarie:

this is because we are both ignorant. We both do not understand enough, we both do not know everything. We only know that God is omnibenevolent, omnipotent, and also omniscience! God says that he gives free will, being omnibenevolent, it must be true. So the fact that he is omniscience doesn't change that.

You're turning in circles here.

AbbeyMarie:

I actually would like to create a thread on that... however i have never created a thread before... what would i call it? Like "Does Creating humans limit God's future possibilities" ? is that a good title or is there a better phrased question that you can think of?

Maybe later. This debate is already taking up too much of my time.

AbbeyMarie:

Also, i would like to ask you a question.... that's off topic. As i mentioned before, I'm researching Nigerian culture because my English class is reading the book "Things Fall Apart" written by Chinua Achebe. In it they mention that when twins are born they murder them. Do you know why? Also, in the book, they talk about the titles of each clan. Do you know, by any chance, how they Acquire the titles? If you by any chance know the answer to these questions, i would greatly appreciate it. =)

=)

=)

=)

Beter ask my lovely Nigerian forumites. I haven't read the book yet (don't shoot, I will )

The moment God created human being in his own image, he decided to give us the liberty to shape things ourselves too. In a way we are cocreators with God. That's my current thinking.

@ chrisd
please do post your references.

I'm sure the late Stephen Jay Gouldn't would't be too happy about you using his exact words without giving him due reference

Dobzhansky is only a theologue, so don't bother about him

So, after reading your reply to my most previous post i realized something.

So, when i think, sometimes God talks to me in my thoughts, gives me wisdom, because i ask him to give me wisdom, and whenever he is asked for wisdom he gives it.

So, when i was thinking about this, before i entered this debate, God gave me a slight glimpse into how it is possible. And i have been trying to explain what it is that God gave me a glimpse of.

But, several times in your reply, you said that the omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenovelnce of God could be different from our concept of them.

And i realized, you are so completely right. It's not in our concept of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenovelnce that i have an understanding of how predestination and free-will co-exist.

Infact, i agree with you that in our understanding of them, it's not possible for predestination and free-will to co-exist.

And, i cannot explain it, in our concept of them, because our concept of them is what makes us question it in the first place.

nferyn:

This is a subjective feeling you attribute to God because you interpret that feeling within a theistic framework. Nobody is capable of objectifying that feeling and make it communicable to anybody outside that framework, because the framework is different, the concepts used are different and there is no mapping between these frameworks. You call it God, I call it a mass delusion.

Unless it's possible, that we are feeling something different. How do you know  what you feel is what i feel? We can never know, maybe you haven't experienced God before. i know i have.

nferyn:

This is not true. Wind is a phenomenon that can be tested and operationalised very easily.

i did not know this. I'm sorry.

nferyn:

This is self-referential. I will feel the same thing but interpret it differently and label it differently.
As I did not grow up in a theistic environment, I find it extremely hard to understand why people believe in God. A majority of the human population does. Many are outright ignorant, but many are intelligent human beings. I want to understand where that comes from. Intellectually, it's so far of the scale that there must be another reason. I will probably not find it, but I keep looking.

I did grow up in a theistic environment. And as to why i, in particular, believe in God. Well, i do have to admit that my theistic environment made my belief in God grow more rapidly than if i hadn't grown up in one. And as a child (in 1st/2nd grade) my sunday school teacher explained that Christians would go to heaven to live with god and people who aren't Christians wouldn't. and so, i think that when i originally received Jesus in my heart, it was because i was afraid that if i died i would go to Hell. That is why i originally believed in Christ. but then, i actually started to feel God working in my life. and i learned more about him, and it made sense to believe, because God was so real. Now, i am actually turning 15 years old in 22 days, and am in my freshman year of highschool. I am right now, probably at the lowest point in my belief that i have been in a long time, if not ever. This is because i am going through changes in my life, and problems occur and yet through all this, i always seem to have faith in God. One day last year, i was depressed beyond imagination, i couldn't even try to get through the day by myself. I prayed non-stop to God, to ask for strength to get through the next breath, the next step etc... God gave strength to me. It did not come from within. it came from God, i have no doubt about this. And the next day, i didn't even go to school because i was so depressed, and i got an email from a brother who was in his freshman year in colledge. The reason i had been depressed was because i felt like no one loved me at all. even though in my head i knew they did, i didn't feel their love. My brothers email told me that during his vespers the night before  (vespers is a type of biblestudy) he felt the need to write me, and in the email, he told me that he loved me. That was God. God worked through my brother to lift me out of my depression, and i made it through at least the end of the year because of that. You ask why people believe in God. and i realize I'm probably not one of the 'intellegint' people you talked about, but rather the ignorant, because i have grown up sheltered and still am very sheltered, i try to learn about everything so i become less ignorant. but the reason i believe in God, is because without him, i am hopeless, useless. My entire life is based on him, because what he has done for me. Does this make any sense to you at all?

nferyn:
My parents did grow up as good Roman Catholics, but they have been dealt such nasty blows by that church that they left. My father is extremely anti-catholic and feels nauseous every time he's close to a man of the cloth. I do not have that negative feeling towards religious people, I just don't understand them.

No offense to any Catholics reading this, but i do not agree with most of the teaching in the catholic religion. You must remember that Catholic is not the same as Christian, yes the Roman Catholic Church is the 'Christian' Church... but, you can be catholic, and not be Christian, just as you can be Christian, and not be catholic. (there ARE people who are both, but being catholic has Nothing to do with being Christian). My mom grew up her entire life going to a Catholic Church, she became Christian when she was in her twenties. (this is just a comment, it has no real point or purpose)

nferyn:
I wouldn't know, but he's definitely against the anti-intellectual position some Christians on this board take. That's also a reason why, in general, I like it more to debate with Muslims than with Christians, they never consider ignorance a virtue.

ignorance a virtue... well i know it would have been better if Eve had not brought back the fruit to eat because it was a sin, but i don't understand why God wouldn't want us to be intellectual. That's another question for my list. (by list i mean list of questions I'm asking God when i get to heaven, if i remember them, that is..) So, personally i don't think that ignorance is a virtue, i know we all have ignorance. but.... i don't know, that could be a thread itself.

This is the only sensible theistic position I can think of, agnostic theism: you cannot possibly have knowledge about the nature of God, but you can believe in him. All attempts to understand the nature of God are futile. This would probably be my position if I grew up in a theistic environment, but I didn't.

nferyn:

OK. Your point being?

it wasn't that important... i was turning in more circles...

nferyn:

Maybe later. This debate is already taking up too much of my time.

would i be horrible if i said that i think this debate is coming to a close? Because, like i said above, thanks to you, i realize that all i have been doing is trying to explain something outside of human perceptions... and I've explained it the best i possibly can. all i can do now is turn in more circles and repeat explaining over and over, hoping that it makes sense...

nferyn:

Better ask my lovely Nigerian forumites. I haven't read the book yet (don't shoot, I will )

well, i don't own a gun so you don't have to worry..... if i did though, you might have to watch out.... LMAO! (Laugh my a*s off)

AbbeyMarie:

So, after reading your reply to my most previous post i realized something.

So, when i think, sometimes God talks to me in my thoughts, gives me wisdom, because i ask him to give me wisdom, and whenever he is asked for wisdom he gives it.

So, when i was thinking about this, before i entered this debate, God gave me a slight glimpse into how it is possible. And i have been trying to explain what it is that God gave me a glimpse of.

But, several times in your reply, you said that the omniscience, omnipotence and omnibenovelnce of God could be different from our concept of them.

And i realized, you are so completely right. It's not in our concept of omniscience, omnipotence, omnibenovelnce that i have an understanding of how predestination and free-will co-exist.

Infact, i agree with you that in our understanding of them, it's not possible for predestination and free-will to co-exist.

And, i cannot explain it, in our concept of them, because our concept of them is what makes us question it in the first place.

I'm glad you understood my point. I didn't really see how you could not understand what I was saying before, but I probably made some incorrect assumptions about your prior knowledge. I'm quite surprised to see such a maturity in a 15 year old girl. My compliments.

Now, concerning the properties of God. If they are different from our conception, we have no real frame of reference to compare them to and they thus become meaningless. You could try to reason from analogy, but even there your understanding would utterly fail, as you still need a human concept to refer to. basically God is unknowable for us humans.

AbbeyMarie:

Unless it's possible, that we are feeling something different. How do you know what you feel is what i feel? We can never know, maybe you haven't experienced God before. i know i have.

It's very well possible that it was something different, but then again, your prior conceptual framework determines how you perceive the world and what you attribute events and feelings to.
The sociologist William Thomas once wrote If men define situations as real they are real in their consequences. This is very true for experiental and emotional situations. It's a logical consequence of humans trying to attribute events to a concrete cause, even if that cause cannot possibly be known by them.

AbbeyMarie:

I did grow up in a theistic environment. And as to why i, in particular, believe in God. Well, i do have to admit that my theistic environment made my belief in God grow more rapidly than if i hadn't grown up in one. And as a child (in 1st/2nd grade) my sunday school teacher explained that Christians would go to heaven to live with god and people who aren't Christians wouldn't. and so, i think that when i originally received Jesus in my heart, it was because i was afraid that if i died i would go to Hell. That is why i originally believed in Christ.

This is the main problem I have with putting children through a strong religious Christian training at a young age: an unnecessary feeling of fear is put in their minds. In many cases a feeling of guilt is added to that. People cannot possibly live up to the impossible targets religions put up for them. Then they feel guilty for not succeeding. If anyone, as an adult, wants to go through that, I have no problem with it, but for children, this verges on child abuse.
I know I use harsh words here, but young children should not have to deal with these kinds of feelings.

AbbeyMarie:

but then, i actually started to feel God working in my life. and i learned more about him, and it made sense to believe, because God was so real. Now, i am actually turning 15 years old in 22 days, and am in my freshman year of highschool. I am right now, probably at the lowest point in my belief that i have been in a long time, if not ever. This is because i am going through changes in my life, and problems occur and yet through all this, i always seem to have faith in God. One day last year, i was depressed beyond imagination, i couldn't even try to get through the day by myself. I prayed non-stop to God, to ask for strength to get through the next breath, the next step etc... God gave strength to me. It did not come from within. it came from God, i have no doubt about this.

Think about how your frame of reference works in the way you attribute feelings to these events. If you wouldn't have had the strenght, you probably would have thought you didn't pray enough. Either way, you would have attributed the outcome to God (or you failing to live up to his standards).

AbbeyMarie:

And the next day, i didn't even go to school because i was so depressed, and i got an email from a brother who was in his freshman year in colledge. The reason i had been depressed was because i felt like no one loved me at all. even though in my head i knew they did, i didn't feel their love.

That's perfectly normal. During your teen years, your hormones cause a serious imbalance in the normal functioning of your neurotransmitters (which regulate your feelings). You unfortunately just have to sit through it.

AbbeyMarie:

My brothers email told me that during his vespers the night before (vespers is a type of biblestudy) he felt the need to write me, and in the email, he told me that he loved me. That was God. God worked through my brother to lift me out of my depression, and i made it through at least the end of the year because of that.

This is another case of attribution. Don't worry, you seem to have an inquisitive mind. Keep asking questions and challenging yourself. You'll grow stronger out of the experience.

AbbeyMarie:

You ask why people believe in God. and i realize I'm probably not one of the 'intellegint' people you talked about, but rather the ignorant, because i have grown up sheltered and still am very sheltered, i try to learn about everything so i become less ignorant. but the reason i believe in God, is because without him, i am hopeless, useless. My entire life is based on him, because what he has done for me. Does this make any sense to you at all?

Somehow, but it doesn't really matter. Continue to learn, ask questions and try to deepen your knowledge and understanding. You can deepen your faith, you could lose it, but you will come out a better person. Learn about other religions and philosophies and ask yourself what the nature of understanding is. A shallow mind looks for shallow answers and I have felt with you that this is not the case. Expand your mental horizon.

AbbeyMarie:
No offense to any Catholics reading this, but i do not agree with most of the teaching in the catholic religion. You must remember that Catholic is not the same as Christian, yes the Roman Catholic Church is the 'Christian' Church... but, you can be catholic, and not be Christian, just as you can be Christian, and not be catholic. (there ARE people who are both, but being catholic has Nothing to do with being Christian). My mom grew up her entire life going to a Catholic Church, she became Christian when she was in her twenties. (this is just a comment, it has no real point or purpose)

This looks like a classical Protestant view on Catholics. It is true that the Catholic Church sometimes overemphasises form over substance, but don't let that limit you. The protestant interpretation of the message of Jesus is sometimes a harsh, orthodox, literalistic and shallow interpretation. If you look for a deeper meaning, you could study the early Christian churches and what they believe, especially the gnostic churches and gospels (e.g. the gospel according to Thomas).
It is also interesting to understand the way the Muslims and Jews study their religion. Expand your horizon.

AbbeyMarie:

ignorance a virtue... well i know it would have been better if Eve had not brought back the fruit to eat because it was a sin, but i don't understand why God wouldn't want us to be intellectual. That's another question for my list. (by list i mean list of questions I'm asking God when i get to heaven, if i remember them, that is..) So, personally i don't think that ignorance is a virtue, i know we all have ignorance. but.... i don't know, that could be a thread itself.

Please don't thread the route of a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. They are parables and allegories to teach a deeper meaning of the divine. If you have a Jewish community nearby, go and ask them how they study the Torah (the Christian Old Testament), you will understand what I mean.

AbbeyMarie:

would i be horrible if i said that i think this debate is coming to a close? Because, like i said above, thanks to you, i realize that all i have been doing is trying to explain something outside of human perceptions... and I've explained it the best i possibly can. all i can do now is turn in more circles and repeat explaining over and over, hoping that it makes sense...

Continue studying and please, don't close your mind for competing explanations of life, they can only deepen your understanding.

AbbeyMarie:

well, i don't own a gun so you don't have to worry..... if i did though, you might have to watch out.... LMAO! (Laugh my a*s off)

I'm in good old Yurup and guns are not easy to obtain here. You'll never pass airport securit anyway

nferyn:

I'm glad you understood my point. I didn't really see how you could not understand what I was saying before, but I probably made some incorrect assumptions about your prior knowledge. I'm quite surprised to see such a maturity in a 15 year old girl. My compliments.

Thank you, i actually am not usually this mature, i am usually very out there and crazy. But i take life seriously, much more than my friends do, i think. Because i think a lot... like sometimes we ask eachother silly questions like, "If you were to die tomorrow and you could do absolutely anything what would you do?" So of course this make Me think... what would i do, i would tell people who i really am, apologize for all the times i've let pride get in the way, write letters to everyone I know, encouraging them in life etc.... but they are looking for answers like, 'i'd melt all the gold in the world put it in the ocean and make the lost city of Atlantas." which makes me realize that i take life so much more seriously then they do. Or at least i think about it more, i don't think any of my friend would be any where near as invigorated as i get from reading sites like these. i love these kinds of sites.

nferyn:

Now, concerning the properties of God. If they are different from our conception, we have no real frame of reference to compare them to and they thus become meaningless. You could try to reason from analogy, but even there your understanding would utterly fail, as you still need a human concept to refer to. basically God is unknowable for us humans.

I think that because i am ignorant about many things, i can understand divine concepts better. If that makes any sence? Like, when you reasearch in human concepts, it becomes the only way you think. But because i have not enveloped myself in human concepts, i do not limit my thinking to only human concepts, so i can get vauge glimpses of divine concepts. Does this make any sense?

This would give a reason to why some people think that ignorance is a virtue. maybe this is the reason that God didn't want us to eat from the tree of knowledge, because we would be limiting out knowledge.

I don't know, all i do know is that we did eat from the tree of knowledge, so now, i want to learn as much as possible.

nferyn:

It's very well possible that it was something different, but then again, your prior conceptual framework determines how you perceive the world and what you attribute events and feelings to.
The sociologist William Thomas once wrote If men define situations as real they are real in their consequences. This is very true for experiental and emotional situations. It's a logical consequence of humans trying to attribute events to a concrete cause, even if that cause cannot possibly be known by them.

ok... This makes sence, your point of veiw on the matter. but i just have a feeling that it's another one of those by 'our concepts' things.... because although how you explain it makes sence, i feel i understand it at least a little bit, God's way. But, right this second, i can't even begin to explain it in human terms.

nferyn:

This is the main problem I have with putting children through a strong religious Christian training at a young age: an unnecessary feeling of fear is put in their minds. In many cases a feeling of guilt is added to that. People cannot possibly live up to the impossible targets religions put up for them. Then they feel guilty for not succeeding. If anyone, as an adult, wants to go through that, I have no problem with it, but for children, this verges on child abuse.
I know I use harsh words here, but young children should not have to deal with these kinds of feelings.

i do agree, but they are also taught God loves them even though they can never live up to the standards, and that God is mercyful and God is always there, whereas children who arent raised in this envoirnment, don't grow up knowing that there will always be someone who loves them no matter how many times they mess up.

nferyn:
Think about how your frame of reference works in the way you attribute feelings to these events. If you wouldn't have had the strenght, you probably would have thought you didn't pray enough. Either way, you would have attributed the outcome to God (or you failing to live up to his standards).

please understand that when i personally am not feeling good... close to God, i pull myself away from my life, and envelope myself in books, stories, fictional writing, i pour my soul into them, so i forget about my life, forget who i am in a sense. That day, that one day, i felt so so completely unloved, that i turned to the only truth i knew. The truth above all truth. Do you know what it's like to believe in something with such your whole heart? This is my frame of refrence, so when i veiw life, i veiw it from this frame of refernce. i can never pray enough, i can never live up to God's standards, i just rely so completely on God, that i can't live without God. So of course i would attribute the out come to God. He is my only frame of referense, my sole frame of referense.

nferyn:

That's perfectly normal. During your teen years, your hormones cause a serious imbalance in the normal functioning of your neurotransmitters (which regulate your feelings). You unfortunately just have to sit through it.

D*mn hormones!

nferyn:

This is another case of attribution. Don't worry, you seem to have an inquisitive mind. Keep asking questions and challenging yourself. You'll grow stronger out of the experience.

i wouldn't have it anyother way.

nferyn:

Somehow, but it doesn't really matter. Continue to learn, ask questions and try to deepen your knowledge and understanding. You can deepen your faith, you could lose it, but you will come out a better person. Learn about other religions and philosophies and ask yourself what the nature of understanding is. A shallow mind looks for shallow answers and I have felt with you that this is not the case. Expand your mental horizon.

That would suck if i lost my faith. I mean, as a teenager i don't know who i am... but if i didn't have God.... Holy crap... I'd probably kill myself.... it's a good thing that God is my only truth, so i know i wont loose my faith!

I don't know where to start looking and reaserching aobut other religions and philosophies. Do you know of a place to start? because i do need, to find myself, to learn about them. I don't know why that would help me understand who i am.... well i guess it will let me understand just how lucky i am, maybe other things too... i don't know i just know that i need to learn more.

nferyn:

This looks like a classical Protestant view on Catholics. It is true that the Catholic Church sometimes overemphasises form over substance, but don't let that limit you. The protestant interpretation of the message of Jesus is sometimes a harsh, orthodox, literalistic and shallow interpretation. If you look for a deeper meaning, you could study the early Christian churches and what they believe, especially the gnostic churches and gospels (e.g. the gospel according to Thomas).
It is also interesting to understand the way the Muslims and Jews study their religion. Expand your horizon.

Most of the time the bible is spoken in parables... Sometimes though, it is spoken as clearly as possible in a way that would be understood throughout the years of the world.

I will try to expand my horizon... but i don't know how, exactly. Where do you start.... how do you know what websites are good, what books are good.

nferyn:

Please don't thread the route of a literalistic interpretation of the Bible. They are parables and allegories to teach a deeper meaning of the divine. If you have a Jewish community nearby, go and ask them how they study the Torah (the Christian Old Testament), you will understand what I mean.
Continue studying and please, don't close your mind for competing explanations of life, they can only deepen your understanding.

k. I have a Friend who is jewish, i'll ask her.

I will continue studying. as for closing my ming.... HA! Closing your mind can never that cannot be a good thing.

nferyn:

I'm in good old Yurup and guns are not easy to obtain here. You'll never pass airport securit anyway ;

whats a Yurup? i could probably buy a gun here... but passing airport security HERE in the USA, after the terrrorist attack.... ha like i could get into the airport with out beeing arrested...

From now on, I'll only reply to the point I think are important. If you have more specific questions, just ask.

AbbeyMarie:

I think that because i am ignorant about many things, i can understand divine concepts better. If that makes any sence? Like, when you reasearch in human concepts, it becomes the only way you think. But because i have not enveloped myself in human concepts, i do not limit my thinking to only human concepts, so i can get vauge glimpses of divine concepts. Does this make any sense?

No, it doesn't make sense. You are limited to human concepts because you are human. You cannot possibly get a glimpse of these divine concepts, they are beyond your understanding. The argument from analogy (divine omnipotence is like human omnipotence, only different in kind) doesn't make sense as there is no way to relate the two.

AbbeyMarie:

This would give a reason to why some people think that ignorance is a virtue. maybe this is the reason that God didn't want us to eat from the tree of knowledge, because we would be limiting out knowledge.

I don't know, all i do know is that we did eat from the tree of knowledge, so now, i want to learn as much as possible.

This is where Christianity differs from Judaism and Islam in it's application. Both Judaism and Islam strees the importance of knowledge and learning very much.

AbbeyMarie:

i do agree, but they are also taught God loves them even though they can never live up to the standards, and that God is mercyful and God is always there, whereas children who arent raised in this envoirnment, don't grow up knowing that there will always be someone who loves them no matter how many times they mess up.

If you do not know fear, you cannot be fearful and you don't need any consolation. Why would God put forth such impossible standards to start with?

AbbeyMarie:

That would suck if i lost my faith. I mean, as a teenager i don't know who i am... but if i didn't have God.... Holy crap... I'd probably kill myself.... it's a good thing that God is my only truth, so i know i wont loose my faith!

Can't you turn to your family if you feel lousy? It's a bit harsh on yourself if you have to deal with these feelings all alone.

AbbeyMarie:

I don't know where to start looking and reaserching aobut other religions and philosophies. Do you know of a place to start? because i do need, to find myself, to learn about them. I don't know why that would help me understand who i am.... well i guess it will let me understand just how lucky i am, maybe other things too... i don't know i just know that i need to learn more.

An excellent introduction into philosophy is Jostein Gaarder's Sophie's World
see: http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0425152251/qid=1136629391/sr=1-4/ref=sr_1_4/102-8137714-3567327?s=books&v=glance&n=283155
I guess you can always pick up a copy in the library
As for other religions, go and visit a mosque and a synagogue and ask questions, they will gladly help you on your way. Do not forget to look into the eastern religions as well (especially Buddhism).

AbbeyMarie:

I will try to expand my horizon... but i don't know how, exactly. Where do you start.... how do you know what websites are good, what books are good.

Just start withSophie's world and asking questions to people of other faiths.

AbbeyMarie:

whats a Yurup? i could probably buy a gun here... but passing airport security HERE in the USA, after the terrrorist attack.... ha like i could get into the airport with out beeing arrested...

You don't know Yurup? My oh my ... you don't know that tiny continent with countries such as France, Spain, the UK and of course the lovely Belgium? You Americans truly must be living on another planet
Within Europe, Airport security has always been as tight as it is in the US nowadays, we've had terrorists long before they took up the idea of attacking the US.

nferyn:

No, it doesn't make sense. You are limited to human concepts because you are human. You cannot possibly get a glimpse of these divine concepts, they are beyond your understanding. The argument from analogy (divine omnipotence is like human omnipotence, only different in kind) doesn't make sense as there is no way to relate the two.

once again we have a possibility that God actually IS giving me an understanding of something divine and i cannot explain it in human terms. because your above quote makes complete sense when you look at it only from a human standpoint of veiw. And yet i seem to understand how it could be.

nferyn:

If you do not know fear, you cannot be fearful and you don't need any consolation. Why would God put forth such impossible standards to start with?

God is omnibevenolent, he is perfect, when he created us, we too were perfect. Had we not sinned Jesus wouldn't have had to die for us so we could go to heaven... we would have been able to get there on our own.

God created us perfect. That means he created us with his standard of perfection already in our grasp. so his standards are not too high. We have already met his standards before. They can't be too high if we have achieved them before!

nferyn:

Can't you turn to your family if you feel lousy? It's a bit harsh on yourself if you have to deal with these feelings all alone.

I can't turn to my family... they are the main reason i don't feel loved. the reason seems stupid, even to me, but its because all my parents care about seems to be keeping their house clean. They harp on me every single time we are alone. I hate spending time with them if that's all they do... critiize me for not 'cleaning my room'! It seems as if their love is CONDITIONAL, rather than unconditional. and who want's conditional love? I don't. and yet, i need there love so much. But my pride stops me from confronting them. And also i can't truely talk to my friends, because i don't think they will accept me for who i am. There is one who i've told everything to, but we go to different schools, and she's rarely available so I'm left alone to deal with my feelings, except of course for God. Actually talking to you on all these matters has helped me alot, because it has remineded me just how much i depend on God. I only wish he could give me a hug! = )

nferyn:

You don't know Yurup? My oh my ... you don't know that tiny continent with countries such as France, Spain, the UK and of course the lovely Belgium? You Americans truly must be living on another planet
Within Europe, Airport security has always been as tight as it is in the US nowadays, we've had terrorists long before they took up the idea of attacking the US.

Sorry, i know Europe, i didn't recognize how you spelled, it... Yurup... i thougt it was a currency or something.

God sees all the things that will happen from the choices we make He sees many paths not the percise one that will happen

Karine:

God sees all the things that will happen from the choices we make He sees many paths not the percise one that will happen

Just because he see's all the possible paths, doesn't mean that he doesn't see the precise one we will take. He is omniscience, that means he knows EVERYTHING, so he would know the precise path that we will take, along with the all the others.