If the future is the result of choices made by millions of people across the earth, and if god imposes his will to change a course of events on earth, then god is infringing on humanity’s free will.
I think what jb_farley is trying to say is something I’ve been thinking about for a while, and it goes a little something like this: If God exists then you don’t really have freewill.
If God exists and is omniscient and omnipotent, then it knows how every decision it makes effects the world. Thus, every time God creates a person, he knows how this person’s life will affect the course of events. While you might have control, even freewill, he knows what you will do. Therefore, God only creates people of which he approves. So while you may have the ability to do what you wish, you’re actions have already been approved and thus aren’t truly free.
I recommend you do a search (here and elsewhere) for Newcomb’s Problem.
picmr
I think God “knows” what’s going to happen the same way a poker player “knows” he’s going to win the next hand.
After all, isn’t predicting human nature the ultimate Game of Chance?
Of course, this all assumes that you believe in a deity that truly knows everything that’s going to happen.
Even if God knows everything that will happen, is it possible that the actual ocurrence is something that would please Him? For example, if someone He creates seeks union with Him, even if it was foreseen, might that event be satisfying to God? And if God does influence things that occur in the world, for whatever reason, doesn’t that still give us the opportunity to react to that influence as we see fit?
In other words, I don’t think free will dissipates every time some outside entity (whether it’s God or your next door neighbor) installs a change in “the world” as you see it. You simply have a different construct within which you can exercise your free will. Just a thought.
If thecabinet’s interpretation of the OP is correct, then the question is, basically, “Is Determinism compatible with free will?” I say yes, but it’s a long (long long) debate, and I’m sure it’s archived on these very boards in several places.
However, the OP said:
The future isn’t just the result of human actions. Storms, earthquakes and meteors play their part too. When this alleged deity imposes his will to change the course of evants on earth, he is hindering free will exactly as much as yesterday’s rains did (in other words, not at all, really). Changing the circumstances under which one lives doesn’t have to mean curtailing freedom.
Varloz, nice stealback. The thread went offtopic almost immediately, but you read enough into the OP to get it back. I kind of anticipated an answer like yours, but I didn’t change the the OP cuz I wanted it to stay simple.
Here are my two responses. First off, think of the butterfly effect. Storms and earthquakes have their roots way back in the past, sometimes in the more recent past. And some of those roots are human behavior and choices. As a result, it is not incorrect to say that natural events are somehow a consequence of free will.
Second, let’s look at a meteor impact. I don’t think it smashed into the earth because of any kind of human choices. We can’t affect the meteor, and we sure as hell can’t affect the orbit of the earth in any significant way. However, the actions of god are those of a conscious being with a will. A meteor is no such thing. A storm is no such thing.
You may believe that tornados and tidal waves and asteroids are the results of god exercising his will. But that is a lot different than saying that the asteroid is exercising its will. And if you do believe in this exercise of divine will, then please see the OP.
jb
If the future is the result of choices made by millions of people across the earth, and if gravity imposes its will to change a course of events on earth, is gravity infringing on humanity’s free will?
I suppose the question is valid if you conceptualize God as a player in the game, i.e., one who OVERRIDES the rules for some of the players or for himself as a player in the game of life. It sounds rather ridiculous if you conceptualize God as the author of the rules, or as that which is described by them, e.g., the rule that you should love your neighbor as yourself translated into observational rule = a human culture will thrive when the structures and individual attitudes best encourage individuals to share and take care of and bear no malice towards each other.
Gravity isn’t punishing you when you fall down.
jb_farley:
G-s lays out the circumstances under which people are expected to make their choices. Sometimes he will take advantage of human choices already made to lay out such circumstances for other human beings. However, he does not force the human being to make one choice or another.
But God can only act out “his will” by acting through people who are obediant to his will or through angels. However, there is nothing imposing about the nature of such interactions, as best I can imagine. Of course, if you become posessed by the Holy Spirit, you lose the will to turn away from God, but that state of being is still ultimately a conscious choice and can be undone (me as case in point).
do you ever think people should ask themselves:
“where did i get my ideas about God?”
and then ask:
“how do I know that those people knew what the hell they were talking about?”
Dal Timgar
See, this is why I worship an omniessent Deity rather than an omniscient and omnipotent one. Since an omniessent deity is also me, and vice versa, that lets me trip merrily along being both religious and existentialist at the same time.
Oh, and dal: Yes and yes. I do both constantly. (And I’m still religious, albeit not in the faith in which I was raised.)
I thought that the Op was worded okay, but obviously it’s not. There has been a lot of misunderstanding on this thread. Lemme see if I can word it another way.
If God makes his will manifest on earth, then it can be said that at some point in time L there is a branching. On the one hand, we have the outcome after L (G) which reflects the divine will. On the other, there is the theoretical post-L scenario (T) which would’ve differed fundamentally from G.
Now all of the events before L are the way they are because of an infinite amount of free choices made by humans on earth. That is a neccessary component of free will- the consequences of its exercise. T is the results of such exercise.
If god steps in and changes the consequences from what they would be, he is effectively nullifying the free choices made by his creation. He is saying, “The results of your choices are not in accord with my divine plan.” In many other threads on this board the importance and necessity of free will as a fundamental aspect of man has been pointed out over and over. Humanity would not be humanity if God infringed on our free will.
As to people speaking of natural laws, or the subtle action of god in guiding his faithful in order to exact his will, I say that there is no basis for calling that the will of God. If it looks just like gravity, or personal choices, then there is no reason to postulate a god working behind the scenes.
I know this is a lot longer than the OP, and I apologize. I hope this clears things up. And before you go about analyzing this post, and looking at it’s strengths and weaknesses, reread the OP. My question is the synthesis of both posts, and neither should stand on its own.
Later gators,
jb
I already mentioned angels. (taps mike) Is this thing on? 
**
jb, I don’t see exactly what the question is. Are you trying to say God could be omnipotent, but the evils of the world are explainable because he lets man have free will? Then I’d disagree (earthquakes etc.). So as Alex Trebek says: could you phrase all that in the form of a question?
I will phrase it as a statement. It is impossible to reconcile the exercise of free will of man existing alongside the implementation of divine will.
Yes, you did mention angels, alongside pious people. Obviously we have different beliefs. I’m not trying to convince anybody of the fundamental error of their beliefs. I find the best way to learn is to find the holes in my beliefs and arguments, and either fill the holes or correct the beliefs. That being said, I think angels are a crock. BUT i realize that many don’t. So instead of bringing up angels and assuming that would solve the problem, could you explain what you believe their modus operandi to be?
Assuming that angels are real, they are beings created without free will. Therefore, any of their actions are the will of god. If an angel changes the course of events, then we’re back to the original quandry (/question/statement)
To those of you who believe that man does have free will and that God’s will is steering the course of the world, tell me how you would reconcile my above ideas. thank you and good night.
jb_farley:
Not necessarily. Take the following example:
G-d has decided that today is the day that person X is destined to die. He also decides that person Y is a type of person who might be tempted to murder, and wishes to test person Y’s righteousness. G-d thus arranges matters so that person X and person Y come into contact.
If person Y kills person X, then G-d plan is fulfilled, and person Y has been confirmed as a wicked person (in that regard). If person Y does not kill person X, then person Y has been confirmed as a righteous person. G-d then kills person X by striking him with a lightning bolt, fulfilling his plan.
G-d in no way caused person Y to act one way or another; he had free choice. G-d’s plan was carried out either way.
Nope. G-d is capable of implementing his divine plan in many ways. He gives people the opportunity to act properly or improperly according to their free choices, and has backups in place in case the choices they make do not result in an occurrence that he had planned to occur.
Well, those of us who believe in G-d think that either written testimony of past prophecy or the lack of scientific explanation for the big bang are reasons to believe that the forces of nature are actually guided by a divine being. I don’t think anyone sees someone falling and says, “I can’t think of any rational explanation why a falling thing would move in a downward direction other than a divine being guiding it.”
Chaim Mattis Keller
jb, I reckon I understand.
Man, as an individual, has free will.
Your argument seems based on the idea that mankind, as a gestalt, has a collective free will, and thus, anything God did to alter events, alters the course of this gestalt being’s exercise of free will to the extend that not only the will of the gestalt but also the will of God would both be made manifest, or possibly one would have to cancel the other out.
No, sir, I don’t like it.
I mean, let’s just take a silly example; something I wouldn’t regard as a miracle or exercise of God’s will. If God wants to make the image of Jesus appear in the window of a car wash in the suburbs of Phoenix, does that alter anyone’s free will? No. Does it change the course of human events? Yes, of course. And yes, there would be a ripple effect with who knows what consequences. But if I’m flipping past the ten o’clock news and they are talking about a car wash in Phoenix for 2 minutes, is my free will somehow altered or negated, because they could be showing “puupy gets a home” instead?
jb. you are absolutely right. There is no logically consistent way to reconcile omniscience and free will. If there is a being that knows everything, then that being must know all choices that will be made (or all possible choices, there is no difference.) If that being knows what choices will be made, then there is no free will. You are following a path which is previously known, and can be described. Therefore, there is no freedom of choice.
Or you can believe like I do, and just say the whole religion thing is a load of hokum. 
**
But then he is removing the free will of X. If X is destined to die, it makes no difference what actions X performs. And since X is supposed to die anyway it seems somewhat…I don’t know… hypocritical (not the exact word, but I just had a mental block) for him to condemn Y for simply carrying out the action, especially when G-d temted Y. If I know someone is mentally unstable and I go and exhort them to perform some action, it wouldn’t be right for me to then condemn them for that action.
**
But, how do we know that he had free choice? How do we know how much G-d influenced him?