I've spent many hours on the issue of whether God "gets involved" or not. I tend to be inclined to think that God wouldn't impose on our free-will by interfering with our actions, choices, perceptions, or beliefs.
But god has imposed. Let me put it another way. Let's say you are standing on the street corner contemplating crossing the street. Before you act you take out your handbook and look up what you should do. In the text it says that you should never cross the street because your god forbids it. So you wanting to follow the text do not cross the street. Therefore the only choice you made was one that was made for you. God imposed his desire of you.
I'm talking about in life. And are you sure about not having an option? Have you heard of a man named Hira Ratan Manik? Here's a guy who actually did exactly what you claim you cannot. He fasted for 441 days, and continued to live off of of the sun's energy and water. (link: Solar Healing Center
I really was not talking about specifics, what I was getting at is, did you have the choice of being born? Did god come to you and ask if you wanted to play his game? Or better yet did god come to me and ask me to play his game and I said yes? I didn't have the option of NOT being born, I also don't have the option to not play the love god game. Therefore no free will.
This is but a purely superficial response anyway. Sure, due to certain physical properties, if you stopped eating your physical body would expire, but who says that's all there is to your life? I tend to believe that it probably isn't, and should you disagree then you're probably a physicalist, in which case I doubt that you're truly a lowest-common-denominator slave to rationality.
I am a slave to how my brain processes the world. EVERY SINGLE thing I do uses that rationality yet when it comes to the idea of god that rationality is abandoned. So why if you use it for everything else abandon it for this? That is irrational. It would be like me stepping around an invisible object because I believe it is there.
And, of course you must always choose something. Are you sure the option to not choose can even exist? An option is still a choice my brother. You'd still be choosing not to choose. That being said the very definition of "will" is the act or process of using or asserting one's choice. And I still assert that you are free to assert your choice as you see fit.
Do I actually have to spell it out completely? Let's use voting as an example. You can vote for believing in god or you could vote for not believing. But isn't there an option to not vote at all? No because you HAVE to play the god game. People will classify those who refuse to cast their vote into the category of not believing, but that is intellectually dishonest. A non-vote is someone refusing to play the game. But like I said, where was the option of not being born?
Maybe I'm missing something, but what's agnosticism then? Pretty sure they're neither god nor not god, more of a maybe God.
Agnostics only make the claim that you can't completely know or not know a god exists. They seem to technically have both a plausibility of a god existing and the possibility that there is no god. It is an option but it is not the one I am referring to.
Who says you can't be indifferent towards God? I mean as far as you're already concerned there's no such thing as God, so God has absolutely no affect on your life anyway, right? Yeah, sure, there's still a-hole ignorant obnoxious fundamentalists, but that's not God's fault, so why hate God for that?
You could be indifferent but that wasn't what I was referring to. You could believe in god yet care nothing for that existence but you have still played the game.
Are you sure the flaw in logic is mine? If so might I ask you to clarify a little better? I wouldn't be surprised if I'm just a big idiot because I'm missing something.:detective:
No you are not an idiot. I just have not presented my case specific enough but the reason I didn't was to avoid having minute details picked apart. I didn't want the examples dissected but instead I want the question reviewed. Analyze the question, break it down into it's parts and answer it like that.
But then don't you have to ask yourself whether a supreme being who still requires something actually supreme?
Exactly my point. It is why I ask the question. However if you say that god has no purpose then by all means I can also have no purpose. If I have no purpose then by all means my life could just be a fluke. A statistical chance that eventually happened.
---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 03:52 PM ----------
in the second paragraph are you asking how would god have any fun if he always knew what was going to happen, and wouldnt it be boring to make up a bunch of lowly beings like us and sit watching as though we were a tv set?
Wouldn't it? If this is the case then by all means god would have an incompleteness, a need or requirement. God fulfills that requirement by creating.
one of the theories i read is that you are exactly right, the supreme being was bored and extremely lonely and that is what caused the universe to be born (and who kows how many other universes or events). if that were true, and if this being wanted surprises watching the sitcom that we are, he would give us free will-but not totally, because we are pretty dumb and dont know what might happen, we arent aware of the consequences.
is that the kind of question you are asking?
---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 04:03 PM ----------
If the universe doesnt require a purpose, why does God?
What that question eventually leads to is whats the point of creating a universe to begin with. If there was no purpose, was it unintentional? Was it to fulfill something for god to create everything? Was god bored? Or does creating give god purpose for existence?
As for your comments about God, I dont follow your reasoning. I think it is quite possible, that humanity can not fully understand God, in His nature, composition, purpose, etc. We maybe able to identify certain attributes, such as omniscience, just, eternal etc, but the why and the how is beyond us.
All I am trying to say is if you say god is omniscient by what criteria are you using? Because as far as I can tell, any and all possible traits must be considered if you make the claim that god is unknowable. Therefore god could just as easily be wicked and evil.
As for your circular reasoning arguement, to paraphrase is as follows: you say that we have the ability to do as we like, but certain choices have negative outcomes, so therefore we have no freewill.
No it isn't about the negative outcomes. I am saying you have limited choice. Just like you only have two options in the god game. You either love god or hate god. You don't have the option to not play the game. You didn't have the option to not be born. You don't have the option to stop breathing and continue to live. You don't have the option to eat paint for food. You don't have the option to stop aging. You don't have the option to fly under your own power. You don't have the option to change your shape at will. You don't have the option to become a bolt of lightning. Do I need to go on or is my point made?
I do not see how this can be correct, just because some outcomes are undesirable, does not remove our ability to freely choose what to do.
Right. So I would only say you have free will if there was no imposing rule. If god never makes any claims as to what god wants you to do, then by that very definition you have free will. But since god gets involved in some way by suggesting, requesting, ordering, you to behave in such and such a way then by all means you have lost free will.
I favour an opinion inbetween, not absolute free will, or absolute predestination. Its as if we are placed in a car, which we can not control the speed. When we come to a junction we can choose left, right or straight on, however we must choose, and we must continue on this journey, some are driving faster than others (short life!) . The ones that choose well, arrive at a good destination, those that live life in a evil fashion, end up in an undesirable place.
Good analogy I like it. It also supports my argument. That you never had the choice to NOT get into the car. You are stuck in the seat and must play the game. Your choice has always been limited or imposed if you will allow me to use that word.
---------- Post added 11-22-2009 at 04:06 PM ----------
I wonder what makes the original poster think that God has a purpose or must have one?
I ask because there are implications to the possible answers. Answers that I feel very few people have investigated to their fullest extent. Perhaps even answers that they ignore because it would disrupt their idealistic perspective of their god concept. It is a valid question and deserves full investigation.