god has no free will

[rexbeccarox]

Mod hat on:

Plagiarism is against the rules- proper attribution should be given. Also copypasta should be quoted in part, not whole, and a summary of your thoughts should be included.

Anyone not following these guidelines will receive a warning, and possibly a ban. Thank you.

[IATIA]

say for instance the only way for it to be disproved if we had a time machine.
we could observe our future self eating something then go back to your own present time a few minutes later and
chances are would we or would we not eat the same thing or do the same action.

If I went into the future to see what I ate for dinner then upon my return there would be no reason to choose anything else other than to screw with the future, which has yet to happen.

Really though, if time travel to the future and back were possible, then there would be no free will. If you can travel into the future, that would make the present the future's past and already a done deal in which we would be nothing more than a shadow acting out history. The dinner has already been eaten and nothing could change that.

[Heywood]

newtons laws of motion <-

say for instance the only way for it to be disproved if we had a time machine.
we could observe our future self eating something then go back to your own present time a few minutes later and
chances are would we or would we not eat the same thing or do the same action.

but even still there is the uncertainty principle with things so who knows.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Sounds like word salad to me. Anyways.....temporal beings(i.e. beings subject to time) who have the freedom between two choices will commit to one choice or another before they actually complete the action that fulfills their choice. Commitment comes first then action. Now there might be a time delay between commitment and action. I do not see how this time delay eliminates the choice. I do not see how it is different if that time delay is one nanosecond or a googleplex of years. Maybe if it is a googleplex of years new informantion will come into existence which would cause a free being to change its mind. But God, as you described Him, is not subject to new information so it simply does not make sense that God would change his mind.

If you think God could change his mind on a whim or simply because....then God hasn't committed to a choice in the first place.

[IATIA]

hock:

You made sense!

[dyresand]

newtons laws of motion <-

say for instance the only way for it to be disproved if we had a time machine.
we could observe our future self eating something then go back to your own present time a few minutes later and
chances are would we or would we not eat the same thing or do the same action.

but even still there is the uncertainty principle with things so who knows.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Sounds like word salad to me. Anyways.....temporal beings(i.e. beings subject to time) who have the freedom between two choices will commit to one choice or another before they actually complete the action that fulfills their choice. Commitment comes first then action. Now there might be a time delay between commitment and action. I do not see how this time delay eliminates the choice. I do not see how it is different if that time delay is one nanosecond or a googleplex of years. Maybe if it is a googleplex of years new informantion will come into existence which would cause a free being to change its mind. But God, as you described Him, is not subject to new information so it simply does not make sense that God would change his mind.

If you think God could change his mind on a whim or simply because....then God hasn't committed to a choice in the first place.

But why did god allow his only book the bible to be horribly translated and also why did the people who were inspired by god to create stories that contradict his message. if gods message was so perfect he would have made it easier to understand and translatable. since god in a way allowed his followers to "deface" his original word why doesn't he get or bother someone to fix all of it back to its original content.

[robvalue]

God has exercised his free will to make himself into a logical absurdity and an untestable non-being indistinguishable from nothing.

He said to me, "What more can I do to get these people to leave me alone?" I didn't know what to tell him.

If God has made any choices, he made them all at once at some point in the past. He's not making any now, since he cannot differ from what he has known he will do beforehand at every point. If he does, then his knowledge was wrong.

The problem is that if someone is making a real choice, it is logically impossible that anyone can know the outcome of the choice beforehand. It's just a demonstration of why omni claims are absurd. If you "know enough that you can tell what they will do" then they are acting predictably, and not making any choice.

[dyresand]

God has exercised his free will to make himself into a logical absurdity and an untestable non-being indistinguishable from nothing.

He said to me, "What more can I do to get these people to leave me alone?" I didn't know what to tell him.

If God has made any choices, he made them all at once at some point in the past. He's not making any now, since he cannot differ from what he has known he will do beforehand at every point. If he does, then his knowledge was wrong.

The problem is that if someone is making a real choice, it is logically impossible that anyone can know the outcome of the choice beforehand. It's just a demonstration of why omni claims are absurd. If you "know enough that you can tell what they will do" then they are acting predictably, and not making any choice.

Pretty much exactly. god couldn't be omni everything. if god had free will he must not have knowledge of everything and the outcome, this in of itself would make god imperfect.

[Whateverist]

But god would have to choose a lot of things. People could have been shades of blue and green. The sky could have been red. There would have been a myriad of choices that needed to be made.

As far as morality, god would have to answer to no one, so the term could not apply.

Free will? Just because one knows the choice one would make does not mean the choice was not made.

Choices being made for god-only-knows what reason is pretty indistinguishable from shit just happening that way.

Maybe people could have been green and blue. Maybe there are reasons that wasn't selected for or maybe it isn't in our genome at all.

You make god sound like an interior decorator.

[JonDarbyXIII]

Even beyond the issue of free will, God cannot be considered 'creative.' If he 'sat down' and contemplated exactly how he wanted everything to be (should people be green and blue; should the sky be red) then there would have to have been a 'time' before creation when God did not know what he was going to do. On the other hand, if the plan of 'creation' was already established from the beginning, then it can't be considered to be creative. In this case, it's really just following a natural course of events. We call that physics.

[dyresand]

Even beyond the issue of free will, God cannot be considered 'creative.' If he 'sat down' and contemplated exactly how he wanted everything to be (should people be green and blue; should the sky be red) then there would have to have been a 'time' before creation when God did not know what he was going to do. On the other hand, if the plan of 'creation' was already established from the beginning, then it can't be considered to be creative. In this case, it's really just following a natural course of events. We call that physics.

Theists just got themselves stuck between a rock and a hard place by that logic.