No, it means it is literally impossible for me to select another option.
And if some alleged option is impossible to select, then it's not really an option. Thus I have no choice.
There is no such thing as 'Free Will'
- Thread starter Azure24
- Start date
And if some alleged option is impossible to select, then it's not really an option. Thus I have no choice.
No, it is you claiming I am wrong while providing absolutely nothing to support your assertion I am wrong.
That's not a rebuttal.
The way I see it, either God knows the future or he doesn't. How is this not the case?
If my life MUST play out the way they have foreseen it, then I do not have free will.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Yeah, it is many a times a challenge given.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
You know the story of Lao ze. I do not remember it correctly. But he left a girl weeping and 20 years later he married her.
In my own case, my grandmother told me that she would like this girl to be my wife (whom I did not ever see before marriage). That was when I was 14 year old. And 10 years later, when I was 24.5 years old, I married that girl, now my companion of 59 years.
God's way are not discernible (speaking as a theist. Of course, my life could have taken may other turns. Life is by chance).
Theists see life in that way - total submission.
Why don't you carry on thinking He doesn't, and leave it at that.
..but no, you don't want to do that .. you want to show how believers are irrational.
..but you're only fooling yourself .. because you can't see further than your nose.
Armageddon is under way .. how is G-d able to tell His prophets these "snippets" of the future?
..because unlike us, G-d does not perceive the future as we do .. i.e. "not happened yet"
Einstein realised that there is more to 'time' than meets the eye.
Actually, it is ... you just won't see it.
It is the case.
What is not the case, is that God's knowledge infers determinism – this is an open question – active in and discussed by philosophers and theologians – there is no indisputable answer.
This from the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
"8: Concluding remarks:
The argument (Logical Determinism) that a proposition’s being true prior to the occurrence of the event it describes logically precludes free will ultimately rests on a modal fallacy.
The argument (Epistemic Determinism) that a proposition’s being known prior to the occurrence of the event it describes logically precludes free will, as in the case of logical determinism, ultimately rests on a modal fallacy... "
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a discussion on Foreknowledge and Free Will.
So I've provided loads of material supporting my assertion. You have actually provided nothing beyond an argument that sits on a logical fallacy.
wil
UNeyeR1
This thread is a perfect example as to why you can discuss religious differences, but you can't argue from differing religious perspectives.
Each always stands on impenetrable ground of belief where logic and facts dont matter.
Each always stands on impenetrable ground of belief where logic and facts dont matter.
Yeah, but you know that's a nonsense argument.
God is outside of time. He is not affected by it like we are. He is always in the Now. He is not seeing the future as that is limiting Him to our feeble attempts at understanding His omniscience. Its impossible for us to understand HIM. Its like explaining advanced calculus to an elementary aged child learning basic math. So good luck!
As with many questions, Judaism does not speak with one voice here. Although not the dominant voice, there is a respected number of sages who posit that G-d’s foreknowledge of the future is not perfect, his omniscience is not unlimited.
I note this only as a point of information, not to argue. Furthermore, even if it were my desire, as a non-Christian it woulbe inappropriate this subforum.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
Jews did not have that. Jesus (or we should say Paul) started it, Muhammad and Husayn Ali Nuri followed.Armageddon is under way ..
For the sake of the forum, I would say that one can 'argue', if both parties are willing to accept the viewpoint of the other. If not, then no argument/discussion can be had. By 'argue' I read putting forward a proposition – too often, the argument becomes subjective and heated, which I think you're pointing at, and a point with which I agree.
That's a rather questionable statement ...
I, and many other, would of course dispute that.
In fact, ig you look at that statement, you can see that it cancels itself out.
+++
Each and every belief system – religion, science, politics, what have you – should stand on the firm ground of reasoned belief based on sound logic and rationale.
'Facts' in this order of discussion are tricky. Post-Enlightenment, what we generally mean by 'facts' is propositions arrived at by a laboratory process.
The inverse being – unquestioned – anything that cannot be validated in a laboratory cannot be considered a fact.
This is at best a mistaken assumption – and at worst it rests on scientism, or scientific fundamentalism, that believes that some unqualified process called 'science' is the benchmark of, and the sole arbiter of, facts.
+++
Our individual narratives, our experiences, aren't factual, they're subjective, yet they are real to us, and are the truths of our lives, and sometimes more real and more true than the fact that if one flicks this switch the light comes on ...
+++
'Facts' and 'figures' are just the constructs that get us through the humdrum of living in the material world.
wil
UNeyeR1
If that is the case the rapture is complete and none of us were called up.
Yes, for me that is the difference between the two.
DerekhHikmah
Member
- Messages
- 8
- Reaction score
- 5
- Points
- 3
Human freedom in Scripture is not presented in the modern sense as though human beings are isolated and fully autonomous agents; this also touches why the idea of gods or a God was so pervasive in the ancient world and we have lost an intuitive understanding of what that would mean or why it is a metaphysical necessity. The Genesis narratives assume human agency unfolding within a relational and spiritual context of a layered reality. In Genesis 3 the deception of the serpent illustrates that human decision occurs within a wider unseen realm influencing human choice (Genesis 3:1–5). The apostle Paul later adds under inspiration, “Adam was not deceived, but the woman was thoroughly deceived and became a transgressor” (1 Timothy 2:14). The point is not to deny human agency, but to show that human freedom operates within a cosmos populated by spiritual intelligences impinging on consciousness.
From the time of Noah and especially Abraham onward, human agency unfolds within a covenantal relationship with God. Israel’s history is repeatedly framed and engaged by the prophets from with that covenantal horizon. From within that the people can either remain faithful to God’s guidance or turn away from it. Prophets receive instruction through angelic mediation (Daniel, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc), divine guidance enters history through a hierarchy of spiritual messengers, culminating in the logos, John 1.
Free will in this framework is therefore not primarily the ability to choose arbitrarily, as though we are acting in a vacuum. Rather, it is the capacity to respond faithfully to the divine call or to resist it. Genesis 4:7:
“If you turn to doing good, will you not be restored to favor? But if you do not turn to doing good, sin is crouching at the door, and its craving is to dominate you; but will you get the mastery over it?”
A central moment in this covenantal understanding of freedom and agency appears in the Exodus narrative when God reveals His name to Moses. In Exodus 3:14 the divine self-disclosure “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” (אהיה אשר אהיה) is more closely conveying the thought of “I will become what I will become.” This statement is closely connected with the tetragrammaton YHWH (Jehovah), which expresses God’s dynamic capacity to bring about what He purposes. In other words, God is the one who causes things to become according to His will and purpose. Genesis 2:1,2 as well as Genesis 3:15 reveal God's divine speech which all history unfolds within and govern existence. Isaiah 55:11 “So my word that goes out of my mouth will be. It will not return to me without results, But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight, And it will have sure success in what I send it to do.” And Isaiah 46:10 “From the beginning I foretell the outcome, And from long ago the things that have not yet been done. I say, ‘My decision will stand, And I will do whatever I please.’”
Within the account of Moses at the burning bush (YHWH) Jehovah God reveals this unique aspect of His name to Moses in which this unfolds in Moses as his vocation going forward as a prophet and leader. Moses himself is reluctant, describing himself as slow of speech, yet the God who “causes to become” also causes Moses to become His prophet before Pharaoh. Moses must respond to the role God brings into being for him. And in turn all of us, in whatever capacity we become capable of through choice. Later at when Jesus established a new covenant with his apostles, he promised the Holy Spirit, which would guide his followers “into all truth” (John 16:13). Divine guidance moves from angelic mediation toward a more interior participation in God’s continually unfolding will.
Debates about free will from within a Scriptural framework are less about abstract determinism versus autonomy and more about how human beings respond to divine guidance from within, or outside, covenantal relationship.
This work of the French scholar of Islamic philosophy and mysticism Henry Corbin can be interesting in this discussion. Corbin often describes the Angel as the celestial counterpart of the person, what some Islamic philosophers call the al-tabi’a al-tamma (“the Perfect Nature”) a kind of higher mode of being that represents one’s true vocation. In several strands of Islamic philosophy this “Angel” or Perfect Nature functions almost like a heavenly archetype of the believer, the higher identity toward which the person is called. Interestingly, something similar appears in apocalypse. Revelation 2:17 faithful Christians who are born from above are promised “a new name written on a white stone which no one knows except the one receiving it.” The image here suggests that those chosen ultimately to receive a heavenly identity known fully only in relation to God which is revealed at their heavenly resurrection.
Also, just to clarify, when Corbin speaks about the imaginal world (`alam al-mithal), he is not referring to something imaginary or invented by the mind. Rather, he is referring to a real intermediate level of existence between the purely spiritual and the material worlds. In this realm symbolic forms, visions, and angelic presences are encountered in ways that are objective to the experiencer, even though they are not material in the ordinary sense. (to properly understand this read Corbin's essay on 'the voyage and the messenger,' or his book on Avicenna, or 'man of light')
Seen in this light, Corbin’s idea of the Angel recovers something very ancient that appears throughout the prophetic traditions: the idea that human freedom does not unfold in isolation, but within a multi-layered cosmos in which divine guidance calls each person forward to become what they will allow God to cause them to become. In that way each of us responds, does not choose in the modern sense people typically think, either faithfully with repentance, or turning away seeking to determine good and bad for ourselves.
From the time of Noah and especially Abraham onward, human agency unfolds within a covenantal relationship with God. Israel’s history is repeatedly framed and engaged by the prophets from with that covenantal horizon. From within that the people can either remain faithful to God’s guidance or turn away from it. Prophets receive instruction through angelic mediation (Daniel, Isaiah, Zechariah, etc), divine guidance enters history through a hierarchy of spiritual messengers, culminating in the logos, John 1.
Free will in this framework is therefore not primarily the ability to choose arbitrarily, as though we are acting in a vacuum. Rather, it is the capacity to respond faithfully to the divine call or to resist it. Genesis 4:7:
“If you turn to doing good, will you not be restored to favor? But if you do not turn to doing good, sin is crouching at the door, and its craving is to dominate you; but will you get the mastery over it?”
A central moment in this covenantal understanding of freedom and agency appears in the Exodus narrative when God reveals His name to Moses. In Exodus 3:14 the divine self-disclosure “Ehyeh Asher Ehyeh” (אהיה אשר אהיה) is more closely conveying the thought of “I will become what I will become.” This statement is closely connected with the tetragrammaton YHWH (Jehovah), which expresses God’s dynamic capacity to bring about what He purposes. In other words, God is the one who causes things to become according to His will and purpose. Genesis 2:1,2 as well as Genesis 3:15 reveal God's divine speech which all history unfolds within and govern existence. Isaiah 55:11 “So my word that goes out of my mouth will be. It will not return to me without results, But it will certainly accomplish whatever is my delight, And it will have sure success in what I send it to do.” And Isaiah 46:10 “From the beginning I foretell the outcome, And from long ago the things that have not yet been done. I say, ‘My decision will stand, And I will do whatever I please.’”
Within the account of Moses at the burning bush (YHWH) Jehovah God reveals this unique aspect of His name to Moses in which this unfolds in Moses as his vocation going forward as a prophet and leader. Moses himself is reluctant, describing himself as slow of speech, yet the God who “causes to become” also causes Moses to become His prophet before Pharaoh. Moses must respond to the role God brings into being for him. And in turn all of us, in whatever capacity we become capable of through choice. Later at when Jesus established a new covenant with his apostles, he promised the Holy Spirit, which would guide his followers “into all truth” (John 16:13). Divine guidance moves from angelic mediation toward a more interior participation in God’s continually unfolding will.
Debates about free will from within a Scriptural framework are less about abstract determinism versus autonomy and more about how human beings respond to divine guidance from within, or outside, covenantal relationship.
This work of the French scholar of Islamic philosophy and mysticism Henry Corbin can be interesting in this discussion. Corbin often describes the Angel as the celestial counterpart of the person, what some Islamic philosophers call the al-tabi’a al-tamma (“the Perfect Nature”) a kind of higher mode of being that represents one’s true vocation. In several strands of Islamic philosophy this “Angel” or Perfect Nature functions almost like a heavenly archetype of the believer, the higher identity toward which the person is called. Interestingly, something similar appears in apocalypse. Revelation 2:17 faithful Christians who are born from above are promised “a new name written on a white stone which no one knows except the one receiving it.” The image here suggests that those chosen ultimately to receive a heavenly identity known fully only in relation to God which is revealed at their heavenly resurrection.
Also, just to clarify, when Corbin speaks about the imaginal world (`alam al-mithal), he is not referring to something imaginary or invented by the mind. Rather, he is referring to a real intermediate level of existence between the purely spiritual and the material worlds. In this realm symbolic forms, visions, and angelic presences are encountered in ways that are objective to the experiencer, even though they are not material in the ordinary sense. (to properly understand this read Corbin's essay on 'the voyage and the messenger,' or his book on Avicenna, or 'man of light')
Seen in this light, Corbin’s idea of the Angel recovers something very ancient that appears throughout the prophetic traditions: the idea that human freedom does not unfold in isolation, but within a multi-layered cosmos in which divine guidance calls each person forward to become what they will allow God to cause them to become. In that way each of us responds, does not choose in the modern sense people typically think, either faithfully with repentance, or turning away seeking to determine good and bad for ourselves.
Aupmanyav
Be your own guru.
I do it that way.
Oh, well said!
I have only dipped lightly into the Imaginal Realm, and this post reminds me I should go further.
at first glance there seems a a correspondence here between al-tabi’a al-tamma and the doctrine of the Logos and logoi that is central to the cosmic anthropology of St Maximus the Confessor. He states: "the logoi, firmly fixed, preexist in God, in accordance with which all things are and have become and abide, ever drawing near through natural motion to their purposed logoi" (Ambigua 42). The individual logoi is likened to a blueprint, the image within 'the Mind of God' (for want of a better phrase) for each distinct creature – each distinction is distinct, according to its logoi, whilst the logoi are all one in the Logos.
Having said that, and acknowledging that Maximus is just about unique in his presentation of the far-reaching implications of this doctrine, the Imaginal Realm as discussed by Corbin offers a rich and rewarding landscape (or mindscape) and your comment:
Cannot be emphasised enough, in respect of the reality of the `alam al-mithal. Such statements might seem 'mind-blowing' to the impoverished spiritual horizons of the present age, but I'm pretty sure for the likes of St John and St Paul and the early Christian communities (as one among others, through the ages) lived in the consciousness of such worlds.
Just to add, as a postscript, while both ideas, in Christianity and Islam, bear a correspondence the the Platonic Ideas and Forms, one should not assume a complete correlation, as we're a long way on from Plato.
- Messages
- 3,628
- Reaction score
- 1,727
- Points
- 108
Seriously?