This question may have been asked before, and I apologize if it has been previously posted, but:
If God has given us the gift of Free Will, why doesn he allow us to use it to deny His own exsistence?
I won’t post my own opinion just yet, but I am curious as to how others may posit there theories on this question.
Have you been prohibited or restrained from denying God’s existence?
I haven’t been, but it is an interesting question that takes into account the ability to prove or disprove thatt there is a God, as well as the “gift of free will” is a major sticking point between Protestantism and Catholicism.
My self, I feel that the fact God has allowed us to deny his exsistence is a window into the gift of free will, because of forcing the belief he exsists onto us, he is giving us the opportunities to have independent thought. However, then, this would make God appear non-omnipotent to some, as he isn’t making it impossible to deny his exsistence.
It can be a convoluted argument, since for every point you make on one side, it raises an even bigger counterpoint on the other side.
If you were God, an all knowing, omnipotent being, would you want to allow your followers deny your exsistence, thus making you not as omnipotent as you truly are?
It is? Do tell us more!
I’m not following you here. To say that God is omnipotent is to say that he can do anything, not that he actually does everthing. So I don’t see how pointing out that God hasn’t done any specific thing in any way diminishes his omnipotence.
It’s not that God hasn’t done anything specific, but rather, he hasn’t limited free will. the fact he hasn’t, he allows his followers to deny his exsistence, thus making his following smaller. I guess it would relate in a world where all the various “Heavens” of the world’s religions are competing for the most followers. (At times it seems this way).
Regarding the issue of free will between the Catholics and the Protestants, during the Reformation, and to an extent today, Protestants believed that everyone was born and their fate was already determined (predestinarianism), whereas the Catholics, spcifically the jesuits, taught that free will was a gift from God, and exercising this free will through good works was what determined if you would go to heaven. Though I am a protestant, I am still not up to date on the currently accepted Dogma regarding Free Will. If anyone has anything to help here, it would be greatly appreciated.
But how does God having a smaller following than he might otherwise have limit his omnipotence? Are you in fact thinking of some quality or characteristic other than omnipotence?
OK, predestination; now I see where you’re coming from. I don’t think your statement of the Catholic position is entirely accurate, but that’s something of a sideshow so far as the main question you raise is concerned.
Perhaps I am. Of course, the other question posed has yet to be answered. If you were God, would you allow your followers to deny your exsistence?
Actually, the question posed is based on a false premise. The question is “why doesn’t God allow us to deny his own existence?” and, as tomndebb has pointed out and I think you have conceded, in fact he does.
You raise a new question in your most recent post - if I were God, would I allow my followers to deny my own existence? Two superficial responses spring to mind; first, my followers, by definition, would be those who accepted my existence, not those who denied it and, secondly, I’m not God, and what I would or would not do is not useful or relevant in relation to what God has or has not done. But I think those responses don’t really address the issue you want to explore.
It seems to me the question you actually want to raise might be “why does God allow us to deny His existence?” or, more generally, “why does God allow us free will?”
But I’m not really sure that it’s useful (or even polite) for me to speculate about the question you want to discuss, and then discuss it. No offence intended, but would you like to restate carefully the question you want to discuss?
I was asking “why does god allow us free will, when we use that same gift to deny his exsistance?” It was an overlooked typo in the OP.
Because if he did, it would be something other than free will.
You may as well ask "why does God allow us free will, when we use that gift to torture one another/pollute the planet/pull the wings off flies/revile the classics/divert watercourses/[insert evil of choice here]. I don’t see that denying the existence of God is different from any other choice which (we assume) are not the choices God would prefer. The whole point about free will is that we can make choices which are not the choices God wants us to make.
But if the choices we make are not the ones God would want us to make, what is the point of free will as a gift for us to use? What is God trying to prove by giving us free will?
Why did God create the universe in the first place? Until we know that, I don’t think we can answer your question.
If the consequence of using free will is eternal torture in hell do we really have this great “gift” from God?
How can someone who doesn’t believe in God be a “follower?” How can a follower of God not believe in him?
Never mind. I understand what your asking and I think it’s flawed in its premise. First of all, the omnipotence of God would not be dependant on human belief in his existence. God cannot be made less powerful by non-belief.
Secondly, I think your phrase “deny his existence” implies that non-belief is a sort of defiant, conscious act of will. I would argue that non-belief is not an act of will at all but simply represents a sort of clean slate. One cannot choose to believe in something, one is convinced of something by some kind of experience, evidence or argument.
Can you choose to believe in fairies or hobbits? Can you will yourself to believe you can fly?
Non-belief is not an act of will.
Non-belief cannot affect God’s omnipotence.
I agree with Diogenes. Faith also is not a matter of will. Faith is a gift that is given to an open heart. The will is in opening the heart.
Let us define goodness as that aesthetic which is morally edifying. And let us define love as that which facilitates goodness. Let us define God as the agency for love. Let us postulate that goodness is the aesthetic most valued by God. The justification for that premise follows from the fact that He has chosen to be the facilitator of goodness. Finally, let us postulate that goodness may be facilitated only voluntarily. That premise is justified by the fact that goodness is an aesthetic, and is therefore of subjective value.
From these, we may infer that God created man as a free moral agent just like Himself so that the facilitation of goodness might have the potential to multiply.
I agree completely with this. It’s probably the most important fact that “believer’s” miss. Definitely at odds with the whole Christian doctrine, though.
As for the OP. He gave us free will so we would do exactly what we’re doing. Thinking, arguing, seeking, inventing, curing, helping, etc. If we knew for sure, if it was proved that G-d existed, I’m not sure we would have the same motivation and drive we do now. There’s no reason to think we’re in some sort of rebellion as opposed to proceding as planned. A non-belief or even doubt about G-d’s existence is probably a more important componet of our existence than belief is. It makes us try harder with what we have now, rather than counting on later to be better.
But, isn’t God supposed to be omniscient as well as omnipotent?
Free will may not undermine the latter, but it does undermine the former.
I don’t see why. Just because he knows what we’re going to do doesn’t mean he’s controlling it.