I figger if God doesn’t TELL us, unambiguously and unmistakably, whether He’s “please” with us or not, then either God doesn’t give a flaming rat’s ass about such things (which would mean He isn’t infinitely compassionate) or God CAN’T tell us (which would mean He isn’t omnipotent).
Or God doesn’t exist.
So reacting to anything at all ever means that our will is not free. If we interact with anything our will is not free. You can deny that free will exists by making the definition of it impossible to achieve but that is about it.
But WB, you haven’t answered their arguments at all. If a Muslim came on to this list and posted an OP just like your own, but instead of the Bible he was talking about the Koran, how would you respond?
Let me also point out that the “God isn’t impressed with your fancy arguments” fantasy is a classic of fundie porn. If I might quote from my original fundie porn post:
**
Admittedly, you didn’t mention hell per se, but it’s still the “God won’t be impressed with your fancy arguments” fantasy- and it still gives us no reason to choose Christianity over Islam.
-Ben
Or God is more interested in whether you’re pleased with Him. “This is the judgment… Everyone who does evil hates the light, and will not come into the light for fear that his deeds will be exposed. But whoever lives by the truth comes into the light, so that it may be seen plainly that what he has done has been done through God.” — Jesus
Did people in the past have free will?
I mean, we know exactly what they were going to do.
For instance, I know that in December 1941 the Japanese will bomb Pearl Harbor. Obviously, since I know they’ll do this, they can’t be acting freely.
Right?
. . .Probably not worth the effort, but maybe. Fenris? You interested in a free will thread?
Um, no. How is that implied? I can interact with something with free will. Event A happens. I can respond with Choice 1 or Choice 2. No problem. But we’re refering to a system where an observer (be it Fenris’ psychologist or an omniscent God) can predict with 100% certainty that when event A happens, I’ll choose #2.
Libertarian wrote:
Even if an omnipotent God were more interested in whether we were pleased with Him than he was in letting us know whether He were pleased with us, He would still let us know whether He was pleased with us or not – unless He did not care at all about whether we knew such things.
If He cared at all whether we knew if He were pleased with us or not, He would let us know. He has not let us know. Therefore, He does not care whether we know.
Perhaps so, but the situation changes radically once the person who knows your future actions starts to interact with you. If you know that you will die at Pearl Harbor tomorrow, can you choose to not be at Pearl Harbor? If God tell you you will have eggs for breakfast, can you have waffles instead?
This becomes most problematic in light of some of the more complex versions of Newcomb’s paradox. To wit: in the fundie scheme of things, fundies generally assume that God knows our future actions, that he wants us all to be Christians, that we have free will, and that he himself has free will. Why does God create people whom he knows will not convert to Christianity? Why not only create those people whom he knows will choose, of their own free will, to become Christians? After all, knowledge of our future actions doesn’t impede free will, right?
-Ben
Seems like we’ve done Genesis 1 waaaay too much already, but doesn’t it repeat “and God saw that it was good” five times with reference to his Creation, finishing with “and God saw that it was very good” with reference to the whole Creation including specifically us?
Nope. See Jarbabyj’s post for details on what He expects. (Nice job, by the way!)
Nope, again. Especially the one about using His message to judge each other. You’d think after Jesus pointed this out several times and condemned people doing it, we might have got the message. But nooooooo…
“What you mean ‘we,’ kemosabe?”
Dunno about you, Bill, but I’ve been trying to witness for Him, not explain Him away. You got something to confess? 
Hey, Christianity didn’t create us, God did. I’m a bit mystified where you’re going with this. Clearly you’re out to condemn false religions, but parsed several different ways, the sentence still doesn’t make sense. And I don’t usually pick on your grammar, but this time you’ve baffled me with it. Wanna take a second shot?
Ace shot. “Nothing but air.” But the call is not to “believe that” anything in particular is true, it’s to “believe in” Him. Accept the idea that whatever might have happened 2000 years ago, the upshot is that He’s stil around and wants to come into your life. And then invite Him in and make His acquaintance, and learn to trust Him. You don’t need to believe the doctrine of the substitutionary atonement, just believe in the Guy who did it.
How are you doing, Bill? Remember the business about showing love to all people? Is it working out better? Are you separating the important stuff from the “filler” material, and making an issue of only what matters? Is this thread doing that? Lemme know what you think about these questions.
Hey, and get your behind over to the Parlor – you’re missed!! 
Assuming it’s a Free Will vs omniscient being thread, sure, pending a quick ruling from I question I asked over in ATMB.
On the other hand, I want to be clear, so there’s no misunderstandings, etc. I’m playing Devil’s Advocate on this issue. I’m interested in the subject but I’m not particularly stressed about the outcome of the debate…I’m more interested in hearing various points of view and a GD context would be loads more fun than a IHMO…I want to make sure that everyone knows going into the debate that I’m only taking this side to be a Devil’s Advocate (plus, arguing the “Free will CAN exist in the face of omniscience” side would give me a some much-needed mental excercize! ('specially given some of the luminaries on the other side :eek: :D).
I seem to remember, though, that playing Devil’s Advocate is frowned upon (I may be misremembering). If I hear that it’s OK, I’d certainly be up for a discussion/debate.
Fenris
[QUOTE]
*Originally posted by Polycarp *
**
Hey, Christianity didn’t create us, God did. I’m a bit mystified where you’re going with this. Clearly you’re out to condemn false religions, but parsed several different ways, the sentence still doesn’t make sense. And I don’t usually pick on your grammar, but this time you’ve baffled me with it. Wanna take a second shot?
Poly, I think what Bill’s trying to ask is
“How do you think God feels about all the other ways people have found of worshipping the divine instead of focusing just on He who claims in his Book to be our Creator*?”
However, this is just my take on it, and I could be completely off base.
Bill, How you doing?
*[sub]DISCLAIMER: I get so tired of saying this, but one does have to clarify. IANAC. However, I also have nothing against most Christians beliefs. This post is in no way intended as a “slam” at Christianity. Please see my sig.[/sub]
And here’s the ruddy sig.
God? What god? I don’t see no god. Who is this “god” of whom you speak?
Something that doesn’t exist can’t have an opinion… IMHO.
Esprix
Shhh, Esprix! Don’t say such things! If you don’t believe in God, He won’t leave any presents under your tree on Christmas!
You have children. I certainly hope you love them to pieces.
Were you displeased when they were learning to walk and stumbled? Were you angry when they didn’t get the hang of riding a bike or fractions? What about that one experiment with the bright red lipstick and the halway carpet? Do you love them any less? Are you displeased with them?
He loves us. And we grow and learn every day, doing our very best. He knows this and supports us.
What if one of your children loves math and the other music, are you displeased? Does it dishonor you that all your children are not identical? That one of them likes to study something academic and another is more artsy? Does this make one better than the other or justify one of your children to tease or hit the other?
Love all. Whatever “weird religion” they study, they are, like you, looking toward God/Creator/Truth. And no evil can be found in Truth and Love.
**Wildest Bill wrote:
How about the way we come up with weird religions that let us do what we think is the best instead of the One that was smart enough to create us.**
Bill, this comes off sounding like: “Unless you practice Christianity, you’re practicing the wrong religion”
Care to dig yourself out from that one? And I agree with Polycarp, the grammar on that particular sentence leaves you scratching your head; what did you mean?
Fenris (yes, I know you’re playing Devil’s advocate) et al:
The problem with free will is not solely due to God’s omniscience, but also due to the fact that he created us.
Consider two analogies:
A child. Clearly a creation of his parents. But, he has free will because his parents are not omniscient. They had no idea how he’d turn out when they created him.
A computer program. Again, a human creation. But now, no free will. This is because the programmer controls every single aspect of the program (unless it’s a Microsoft program, in which case he’s lucky if it does what he wants it to do half the time).
Now, many theists like to argue that humans are neither of these things: we are actually a computer program with a random number generator. While God still created every aspect of us down to the molecule, the random number generator allows us to make our own choices, and not follow a predetermined outcome.
But the problem with this is that it destroys God’s omnipotence. A random number generator is only random to the programmer, because he doesn’t know all the variables that go into creating the random number. But God (who’s omnipotent) would know each variable. So God can’t pick random numbers like us humans can.
There’s always the possibility that God deprives himself of his omnipotence in order to create random numbers, but things just get worse when we make these sort of speculations. If God can make himself temporarily un-omnipotent, can he take away the power to reverse this action? Does he then have to take away his power to reverse that action? Infinite regression sets in, not to mention a host of other paradoxes.
WBill: God is VERY upset that you discontinued piano lessons. And he REALLY wanted you to go on to law school.
However, he loves ME. It’s the Prodigal Son thing.
Care for a slice of fatted calf?
Frankly, I have no idea. Perhaps there are multiple possible futures, diffrent branches in the Trousers of Time. Perhaps there’s no such thing as “future” at all, only a fiction drawn up by our imaginations (tell me - can you show me this “future”? No? Can you show any effect it has on the material world? Then by the laws of physics - or at least, the ones this layman undrstands - it doesn’t exist). Or perhaps God chooses not to interfere with the mortal realm, only nudging us in the right direction every millenia or so, or making sure that we don’t blow ourself to bits. I’m a bit of a Deist myself - you know, God helps those who help themselves and all that - so that sort of appeals to me.
In other words, I don’t know, and I don’t understand. But just because I don’t understand how something can be possible, that doesn’t mean it can’t be possible. It only means that my intellect is woefully limited.
As for the second half of your post - I could care less about the Christian point of view, seeing as I’m not Christian. I never criticize other people’s religions.
It’s bad policy.