God is perfect. To my knowledge, no theist will deny this claim, so I'm not going to spend any time defending it.
If God is perfect, then all the consequences of his actions must be perfect. To deny this would be like claiming you had a perfect mechanic, but your car's brake pads and oil pump were not fixed properly. It is in the very definition of perfection to be "without flaw."
Since human beings are a result of the actions of God, all of our decisions must ultimately end up as fulfilling God's perfect plan, even if on an individual basis they would appear not to do so.
But, in order for this to occur, our wills cannot really be free. If our wills are free, then God could not ensure that his perfect plan would come to pass. We could muck it up with our bad decisions.
Thus, we either don't have free will, or God is not perfect (which would mean denying premise 2 or 6). Take your pick.
1. If God is perfect, then all the consequences of his actions must be perfect.
2. God is perfect.
3. Therefore, all the consequences of his actions must be perfect (1,2).
4. The existence of the will of a human being is the result of God's actions.
5. Therefore, every human being's will must end up producing perfect consequences (God's perfect plan). (3,4).
6. If every human being's will must end up producing perfect consequences, then our wills are not free.
7. Therefore, our wills are not free (5,6).
This only applies to theists. Atheists obviously deny God's existence so this argument is only focused on showing the dilemma faced by theists who hold to a traditional view of God.
What say you?
Okay, what does that mean? What flaws are you talking about?
I'm not talking about any specific flaws. Theists define God as perfect, and I am taking that in the traditional way. The argument doesn't rest on quibbling over the meaning of perfect.
It rests on God being perfect, but if that is so and he gives us free will, how can he achieve his perfect plan?
Then, your claim of perfection has no meaning.
Yes, traditionally meaningless, as it always has been.
It absolutely does, because one could use the word supercalifragilisticexpealidocious, and the meaning, or lack thereof, doesn't change.
Now, you're just going round in circles chasing a tale. What does perfect mean?
No. God is defined as morally perfect, omniscient, and omnipotent.
To claim you don't fully understand what God's perfection entails does not mean that the traditional definition is meaningless. It simply means we are not in a position to assess what God's actual plans are, but accepting that God exists means he does have plans!
Anyway, I am an atheist, and I constructed this argument to undermine free will.
The introduction of imperfection comes when you presume that the man when he sees the perfection of God will deliberately choose otherwise.
Tell what about perfection that a man can view it as something to abhor?
What ever your answer is, you would realise that the fault is not with perfection itself but with the man.
And the only fault of the man is that he refuses to see perfection as perfect but has made it something else.
This is the freedom that perfection offers, that despite it being what it is(ie perfect)..
Men are given the opportunity to see it as otherwise (imperfection).
But still maintain the confidence that, when perfection is seen by that man, he will choose it as the best option forsaking all other possibilities. Thus the freewill is bound only unto the freedom of perfection.
The perfection dilemma when both sides work unto the same end.
It isn't often that I agree whole heartedly with your sentiments, but this response is, imo, quite good and dead on.
So we don't have free will and you accept my conclusion?
Maybe you do not realise I have answered the question you are asking....
If you cant find the answer in what I have already said, then I cant help you further.
So you are claiming premise 6 is false. It's possible that our wills can be free and still produce perfect consequences.
I don't see how "the freewill is bound only unto the freedom of perfection." In order for a will to be free, it must have the possibility of doing what it wishes, and human wishes will not necessarily be in line with God's ultimate plan.
The intent of God was that we have free will. The mere fact that we're capable of mucking things up means we are as He intended. And because the will is truly free, as in a will apart from His, then the consequences of our actions are not the consequences of His. Other than creating us as intended. And His allowance of imperfection is because His intent was for our wills to be free.
God exists as the Highest Being. We are lesser Beings. When we pay attention to the Highest Being we profit. We get better. We just need to pay attention and intuit The Highest Being's will. That will is Love.
So, why not pay attention and try to intuit the Omnipresent Consiousness of the Highest of "Beings?"
This is all I will say about the matter. Just trying to be helpful.
And, where is this so-called "Highest Being" that we are to pay attention? Under the carpet?
Where is the dilemma? Other than not being able to resolve this moment in time as perfect? Other than accepting that your will has not been done? Your idea of a perfect cosmic view has not been fulfilled?
This argument is pointless because it not only attempts to sit in judgment of an unseen being, it also sits in judgment of all of humanity. It condemns reality. It is never ending since if you reached an understanding that resolved the question it would be unique to you. The rest of humanity would not be satisfied. Where is the perfection in that?
To deny the conclusion of a logical argument, you must show the premises don't support the conclusion or that one or more of the premises are false. The only ones a theist would question as false are premises 2 and 6.
Based on traditional theism, I'm not sure how you could deny premise 2 or 6. But if you claim to be a rational person, and you can't deny any of my premises, then you should accept the conclusion that we don't have free will.
If we don't have free will, then we are not responsible for our actions, and God cannot judge us without appearing to be a monster, because he is the one who set up the world in such a way that we would "sin." That's why a lack of free will matters.
-( I guess I do have more to say) We have free will within the boundaries set forth by the ten commandments and the Golden Rule: (loving ourselves, others and Omnipresent Spirit/Creator. )
Is that logical?
I think we are using different definitions of free will (which may more accurately be described as free choice). Anyway, you have the freedom to sin, to curse God, to do whatever. That's the standard, traditional definition of libertarian free will most theists hold to.
Given that, your free will cannot ensure that God's perfect plan comes to pass. I suspect that's a huge problem.
"Given that, your free will cannot ensure that God's perfect plan comes to pass"
Implicit in that statement, and in the OP, is that God's perfect plan does not include sections that humans would classify as imperfect. It is nevertheless perfection. By definition, anything God does is perfect, including designing and implementing a plan with pain, suffering and all the other evils on earth.
YOU don't get to define perfection, the theist does and has defined it as anything He does. Should an asteroid hit tomorrow, one God did not send and did not want, it is still perfect because it is defined that way.
The problem it seems, when these proposals that try to find contradiction between a perfect omniscient/omnibenevolent God and the concept of free will are proposed, is that the concept of free will is either misunderstood or underestimated in the thought process. Ironically, it is science that gives deeper meaning here.
As science has shown, the material world is made up of matter that behaves in consistent, predictable ways. And it has shown us that the material universe and everything in it is governed by constant, unchanging natural laws. And much like the cells in a body adhering to the code of the body's DNA, all matter behaving in accordance to the natural laws makes the collective effort work. The nature of matter's behavior in the environment created by these natural laws results in this fantastical reality we see before us.
Human behavior coming from a self-centered perspective and based in reason, is an anomaly in the natural world. Our ability to behave free, as in behavior not determined solely by our physical make-up, is what's significant. That's what the whole Adam/Eve story was about. The first chapter shows how the entirety of existence followed God's commands to the letter. Then comes Adam and Eve who are set in this very scientific-like test scenario where there's only one rule set by the same creator that all the rest of existence follows without question. And they break it. They're the first creation capable of behaving contrary to God's will. By design.
Our having free will is the equivalent of each individual particle of matter having the capability to choose whether or not to adhere to the natural laws. Reality would unravel if that were the case. In this context, from a God as creator of the universe standpoint, the natural laws are God's will. And nature has shown that it works just fine as is. Afterall it resulted in us existing because it is the way it is. Like a well functioning body with all the individual parts behaving just as they should. Free will would be like cells in your body each adhering to their own DNA code different than the DNA code of the body they live within. Though there's no malice intent, those cells simply behaving in accordance to DNA code that doesn't belong to the body means there will be conflict. It makes those cells a potential cancer that endangers the body that they, and all the other cells of that body, depend on.
Free will is the intention. It's the whole reason for all of this. But it's a volatile thing. It's well worth it because it's what makes existence worth living. Sure, we could exist in a perfect Utopia, but that would require that we all be drones. Like communism, where everyone has a specific duty that they must adhere to for the system to work. Much like cells in a body. But while communism may look good on paper, in practice it simply doesn't work because we humans aren't built that way and we'll reject being put in boxes like that. We don't like being told what to do.
Equating death or disease or pain to evil or to imperfection is an error. Afterall, where would we be now if there were no death? It's a vital piece of this existence. It's necessary. It makes life urgent and makes each moment matter because there's an eventual end. And it's the diseases and the predators and the overall struggle to survive that forged these bodies of ours. We were shaped by it. All of it. God created an environment and a physical world that just so happens to be the ideal place to foster something like free will. Without the potential for pain, without the possibility that you or others can be hurt, without the risk and the weight of repercussions and consequences, free will has no meaning. The simple fact is, it must be this way. Can you imagine or conceive of an existence that is more perfect? Just try it and see what you end up with. Can you improve the design?
You're assuming that it was free will that broke God's command.
But if A&E performed exactly according to God's will - exactly what He intended when He made them - then what? His plan included them eating the apple, it included kicking them out of Eden and it included people that disobey His rules, what does that say about free will?
We have a habit of declaring that God only does things that we find good, even as we know He does not, then saying that God's ways are "inscrutable". So does that "inscrutable" include actions, intents and plans that contain disobedience from His creations? Included, from the very beginning, death, pain and evil? Did His plan include the birth of the man called Hitler, include Hitler killing millions of "chosen ones" in the 30's and 40's?
His ways and His plans are inscrutable and not fathomable by man. It is entirely possible that the movement of every atom, every thought by every person, has been carefully planned out and follows that perfect plan completely. Even the lies fostering the idea of free will are according to plan. Yes?
This is what I mean. It's an under-appreciation of the concept of free will. It's not that the plan was for them to eat the apple. The plan was to give them the capability and the choice. But they had to choose it. And they had to choose it of their own volition and for their own selfish wants (wisdom, good to eat). That's the key. Free will makes us creators ourselves. Hitler created his actions through his free will.
Take the story of Abraham and Isaac for an example. Why would God, having knowledge of past and present, have to test Abraham? Because choices made of free will are not 'of God'. If God had not interjected into the timeline and created a situation that made Abraham choose whether or not to sacrifice his son, then his decision never would have existed and God actually would not have known whether or not Abraham would obey. See what I mean? Free will is a powerful thing. We are able to create, and add to this existence, decisions/actions/creations that are not 'of God' but are 'of us'.
Yes, God could see what Hitler was going to do, but that was the result of free will. And free will would not have been free if He had put a stop to it. What would our ability to choose our behavior matter if anyone who had ever attempted to do anything "bad" was stopped by God? If nothing bad was ever allowed to happen because God would intercede? Would we truly be free?
It is possible to behave of our own free will and still be within God's will. Free will isn't all bad, it just provides the potential for bad. God just requires that we acknowledge His authority and the rules He puts in place. Because it is our choice whether or not to acknowledge Him OR to follow His rules. We have to choose of our own free will whether or not we will play by the rules and respect His authority. It has to be our choice, and we must choose it willingly of our own volition.
"It's not that the plan was for them to eat the apple."
Your proof? How do you know that wasn't the plan? Because the creature wanting you to believe a falsehood said so?
"Why would God, having knowledge of past and present, have to test Abraham" "What would our ability to choose our behavior matter if anyone who had ever attempted to do anything "bad" was stopped by God?"
These and all other questions as to why God does something all have the same answer - God's ways are inscrutable and unfathomable to mere man. We cannot know. It is possible that He, for some reason (or no reason) we don't understand, did it.
You're not understanding (or not wanting to) - as long as we refuse to hold God to the same standard as we hold ourselves we cannot honestly believe that He hasn't made the master plan down to the atomic level. He made Hitler precisely because he would murder Jews. He made Adam the way He did so that Adam would follow the plan and eat the apple. He is, at the root, directly responsible for all the evil and pain in the world; it is a part of His plan, albeit a part we don't understand. There is absolutely no free will, just God's plan.
So, let me get this straight, when a question or conundrum such as this is put forward, if I or anyone attempts to apply reasoning to it, we're told that "God's ways are inscrutable and unfathomable to mere man". So then why the question? Why have the discussion? If we're then not allowed to try to address them?
My 'proof', as far as how to read that story, is the rest of the bible. That one part of the story is clearly told and makes clear throughout the rest of the bible that the entire theme to the whole thing is that humans behave contrary to God's will. He both rewarded the Israelites (manna from heaven) and punished them (striking down some in sight of others) to try to keep them in line with His commands. And over and over again the story is the same where one generation would fall in line, but within a generation or two it was right back to how it was. Don't you think things would have gone much more smoothly for God if it were all going to plan? Remember it says he 'regretted' having to send the flood. You don't have 'regret' if things are going to plan.
Just read how the story is laid out. Everything in existence, the land, the plants, the animals, even pre-Adam humans, did exactly as God commanded. It doesn't say He physically molded existence like clay. It says He spoke and it became. Even the humans were given specific commands (fill the earth, establish dominance in animal kingdom) that would take numerous generations to accomplish and they did it. We know they did it because A) God then deemed all He created 'good', B) what the humans in Gen1 were commanded to do is exactly what homo sapiens did between 200 thousand and 10 thousand years ago.
From the time of Adam on, humans have established class systems, making one group more important than others. Humans have killed, enslaved one another. And that same aggressive 'civilized' behavior spread from the birthplace of civilization out until it completely overtook the world. That's our history. Arriving on already inhabited land, deeming ourselves worthy of taking it, then killing/enslaving the inhabitants. That free will is what distinguishes us from indigenous humans. We're much more self-absorbed than they are. They are much more tribe-minded and much less individually minded, and there's a nearly universal idea that there's a spirit force that animates the world that they consider themselves a spiritual part of as well. We're much less content and have a much more pronounced disconnection from the natural world. It's a heavily documented difference. A difference that coincides with the psychological idea of a more pronounced ego, or a free will. An ego that feels separate from the natural world, separated from one another, even separate from our own physical bodies. It's what made us male-dominant, subjugating women still more tethered to the natural world than we are because of child-baring. It's what created the first societies with class stratification. And it's a psychological change that goes hand in hand with the human behavior change where personal possessions are concerned. A change also written about by the Greeks, Romans, and even in ancient Chinese mythology....
The Roman poet Ovid's description of the human race's decline from the original golden age ...
"There broke out ... all manner of evil, and shame fled, and truth and faith. In place of these came deceits and trickery and treachery and force and the accursed love of possession ... And the land, hitherto a common possession like the light of the sun and the breezes, the careful surveyor now marked out with long boundary lines."
"In China, there are many legends speaking of a Golden Age before the time of constant warfare and social oppression, and archaeological evidence suggests that these aren't just myths."
"But, again, this is also clear enough from the new culture they brought to China. The "Golden Age" of peace and sexual equality came to a cataclysmic end." - Steve Taylor, The Fall: The Insanity of the Ego in Human History and the Dawning of A New Era
This goes hand in hand with what the bible says was different about Adam and Eve. And these also go hand in hand with the data that says patriarchal societies first began in southern Mesopotamia. The same societies that eventually became the first civilizations.
You can keep trying to lay all the bad things at God's feet because, well, if He didn't create us at all then none of that would have happened. So, in that case you'd have a point. And nothing good that we love about life would have happened either. But the only other option is to create all of this and create us, only create us as drones that only behave as we're supposed to, but not of our own volition. We could have a Utopia if that were the case, but it would be meaningless. It wouldn't be of our own will and our own making. As soon as you add free will to the mix, it gets hairy.
But I am trying to answer the conundrum; the answer is that we don't have free will. It goes as follows:
God is perfect and has made a perfect plan. This is in line with the OP.
God lies when he tells us we have free will. That lie is a part of the perfect plan and, as God's morality is not ours, does not make Him imperfect.
We thus have no free will, just God's perfect plan. The purpose behind the lie of free will is unknown as His ways are unfathomable and our morals do not apply to Him. He is perfect no matter what He does.
Conundrum solved; God is perfect, our free will is but an illusion for reasons we don't know. The alternative is to decide God is NOT perfect (because the conundrum is logically correct and thus one or more premises are false) but that brings up a can of worms best left unopened. Better to just accept that free will is an illusion.
But your answer is flawed. Flaw #1 is the juxtaposition of a 'perfect God' who's 'perfect plan' includes lying. Is it really a perfect plan if you have to lie? Flaw #2 seems to be that you're not considering free will a part of the perfect plan. If free will was the intention, the end goal, of the perfect plan, then free will existing as it does, and all the bad things that happen actually happening, means things are going to plan. Just because we're such a volatile piece of the equation doesn't mean a being who exists outside of this universe, thus outside space-time, who can then see past/present/future all at once, can't ensure His perfect plan still plays out. In fact, stories about a regrettable flood, dispersing the people of Babel because of what they were doing and not because it was 'part of the plan', punishing the Israelites to keep them in line, showing his power over the natural world to sway the behavior of free willed people, means He has taken action to ensure an outcome that He can see and we cannot. The intended end. Thus, a perfect plan. The ability to bring about an existence where free will actually exists that's still possible and not doomed to eventually deteriorate.
Besides, why is it God's ways or reasonings are unfathomable, yet your assessment that a perfect God with a perfect plan cannot coexist with the concept of free will doesn't apply in the same way? Couldn't it be your limited perception (compared to God, not meant as a dig) is what makes the two so seemingly incompatible?
No. You're not getting what I'm trying to say.
1. You keep applying earthly morality and concepts of right and wrong to God. They do not apply; a perfect God cannot do wrong because, for Him, right is defined as whatever He does. He can lie, steal, rape, murder - whatever He does is right and perfect.
2. Free will and God's detailed plan cannot co-exist. When individual humans can use their free will to determine how others will live their lives hundreds or thousands of years later, no plan could take that into account. It becomes a random factor, always unexpected and never foreseen or in any plan.
Consider what Buddha, or Mohammed, did and what their actions did to future generations. We see billions of people that never heard of the Christian god, simply because whole cultures formed around those two individuals. Billions of lives that could not be in any plan because both men had free will to act as they did - they were the random factor that cannot be planned. Note that this is by definition: God cannot know what free will will produce or it is no longer free will. If God knew of Buddha's actions and the effect they would have, then those actions were pre-ordained and unchangeable, The antithesis of free will.
1. I have not applied any moral concepts to God. I've only drawn the distinction between God's will and our will in an attempt to better define "free will". In this context God's will is the natural laws and our will is anything un-natural. Much in the same way we ourselves instinctively make the distinction between what's "natural" and what is "man-made". We are the only known beings/entities in all the known universe that willfully and deliberately create things born of a reasoning mind. We add to this universe by doing. We create things that didn't exist in the natural world previously. Whether it be skyscrapers, art, science, religion, war, bombs, etc. Things that can have a dramatic impact on how things play out. That is significant. Just think about that. When I say 'free will', that is what I mean. If God is the architect of the natural world, and the delicate balance of this natural world hinges so greatly on the consistent behavior of matter, then our ability to behave outside of that, just on a whim if we like, is a significant and powerful gift.
2. Here you are applying earthly/humanly limitations to the creator of the universe. If God created the universe, and time only exists within this universe, then how can God be limited by it? You and I make decisions of our own free will in the moment because we are within the dimension of time. We, in the moment, choose freely. God, being outside the universe and outside of the dimension of time, sees all at once. But His ability to see has nothing to do with your ability to choose freely. There's only one timeline that spans between the beginning and the end, and it only plays out one way, and the decisions you made in each moment are only made once. But they're made by you willfully. In the case of Abraham God intervened, creating a situation that would not have existed otherwise so Abraham would make a decision he wouldn't have otherwise. From God's perspective, there's only whether or not something happened, there's no "when".
1) Sure you are - the idea of God lying as being imperfect, or in this case, immoral. As anything - anything at all - that God does is "perfect" by definition; the concepts of human morality are irrelevant to God.
2)You're making my case for me
"There's only one timeline that spans between the beginning and the end, and it only plays out one way"
God knows how that timeline will play out in our universe because He's omniscient. It cannot be changed by anything we do (or His omniscience was false). And that means we can only make on choice at each juncture in the timeline. No free will.
I agree that if a God knows everything he knows how things will play out. He knows the chemistry of our brains at any particular moment and therefore our choices have already been foretold to him. Why would he need to see what decisions would be made by us if he already knows the answers? Because we would make the same choice every time all things being the same including time and brain chemistry free will is a necessary illusion or delusion. Actually God is completely irrelevant to this conversation, his existence doesn't matter to free will.
Then where did our free will come from?
The inescapable conclusion is that we either have no free will OR that there is no omniscient God. Perhaps a god, but not an omniscient one.
The stars are alined, every atom has a charge. Life plays out and God is irrelevant to the delusion/illusion of free will.
I'm curious as to how/why free will is a 'necessary illusion/delusion' if we're not actually free to make our own choices anyway? If our behavior is determined by our physical/material make-up, then what does it matter whether or not we're deluded? Why must we be fooled to simply behave as we're built?
No no no no. We are not fooled to simply behave as we're built, we are fooled to think our choices are choices. If one could determine the actions of every molecule or atom or particle in the universe then one could predict the future which makes free will an illusion/delusion. But it's necessary for us to feel that the future is and cannot be determined for us to get up each morning. Depression is sometimes the result of helplessness.
So, are you saying that being under the 'illusion/delusion' of free will changes our physical make-up, thus changing our behavior? Because if it's as you say, that our behavior is determined solely by the actions of the molecules or atoms or particles that we consist of, then the only way that 'illusion/delusion' accomplishes anything is if being deluded actually alters our physical make-up. If not, then it doesn't matter how we feel. If we're depressed then we were going to be depressed anyway and no level of delusion would change that.
No, I'm not saying it changes our physical makeup, it's simply part of it. It's part of the process of the human brain, the chemistry is already there. Everything can be determined if given enough information. Smarter people then the two of us are tracking and determining the course of everything in our solar system. The weather is predicted. We can given our limited knowledge predict the responses to events of people we are close to. It's necessary for humans given our sense of self awareness to think we are in control of our lives and that chemistry is in place or we wouldn't be here.
I get what you're saying. I get that there are chemical happenings that come into play if we're depressed that can alter our behavior from what it would have been had our chemical levels been more on par with a non-depressed state. I get that. What I don't get is how/why a lump of biological material cares whether or not it's actually in control of itself as to chemically alter how it functions? At what point in this purely mechanical process can this bundle of atoms/particles/molecules be depressed by the idea that how it behaves isn't really in its control? What does it matter? And who does it matter to?
The chemical happenings are at play wether we are depressed or not. Life has evolved to be like this, if it wan't like this we wouldn't be here.
Right, but what you said is that the illusion/delusion of free will is necessary for us to "feel that the future is and cannot be determined for us to get up each morning". Why? What does it matter to a bundle of atoms and molecules that it be fooled into believing it's in charge?
Interesting point, but then at the same time, there is a difference between knowing an outcome, influencing an outcome, and controlling an outcome. Knowing the outcome still allows for free will because it is still a choice to be made.. Influencing an outcome limits free will slightly, but still allows for it to some degree.. But controlling an outcome eliminates free will altogether
Not really if the choice has already been made by brain chemistry, it's not a choice if you'd make the same choice every time given the same circumstances.
And yet some claim they are guided by god.
I find it best to take the concept of God out of the equation of free will as it simplifies it better for the discussion and is somewhat irrelevant to the discussion anyway.
Keep in mind that part of that equation includes free willed beings asking for guidance. That's important.
So for the people who are to afraid to make decisions for themselves, they ask God to help, but in reality they run a simulation of God in their minds so they think or are deluded by their own mind to think they are given direction. Sounds right.
The point being that those who are guided are upon request. First you have to willfully ask for guidance. It's "ask and ye shall receive", not "you're just going to receive whether you asked or not". Our will, our behavior, our actions, our decisions, what we request, the commandments/laws, judgement, belief/faith, the whole theme of the whole concept has everything to do with our wills being free. If it wasn't then none of any of that would matter.
As for God and your comment that he's irrelevant to the discussion, that's not exactly true. Without God there's no chance of a non-physical/spiritual aspect of the self, thus nothing that is free of the confines of determinism, thus no free will, thus no discussion.
Then how come I can discuss free will with the absence of God? It makes perfect sense to me.
You mean free will without God makes sense to you? How does it work in a no-God context? If it's as you said... " If one could determine the actions of every molecule or atom or particle in the universe then one could predict the future", being the determined standpoint, how does the free will equivalent work? In what way can a brain made up of physical matter that adheres to physical laws behave any differently in any given moment than it does? How is that possible with no God and no non-physical element to the 'self'?
Right, it's a necessary illusion/delusion. But it can still be discussed.
Not so sure it is illusion. A few years ago I would have agreed; given the motion, energy state, and all other pertinent facts about every particle in the universe any specific choice should be predictable with 100% accuracy.
More recent discoveries of subatomic particles that act without cause throws that comment out the window. When random events happen without any cause, free will becomes possible. Or maybe I'm rationalizing because I like to think I have free will to act as I choose.
Yes I understand, particules popping in and out of existence sounds strange, but perhaps that's because we don't fully understand the particles yet, or the universe or the multiverse. Hell, I want to think we have free will and a God to exist forever with, but sometimes we have to bypass our emotions and look at reality.
An honest statement.
If the reality is that we don't understand reality, then the reality is that this statement doesn't honestly evaluate our level of understanding of reality. IMO. Not everything observed has been explained. Theorizing is not an emotional reaction. It is taking the data available and coming to tentative conclusions. This behavior is not unprecedented or uncommon. You can certainly disagree with the conclusions, but accusing others of using emotions to arrive at their conclusions sounds to me like an emotional reaction if it is the result of a firmly held conclusion.
I know what you mean, but I'm not sure the inherent uncertainty in quantum mechanics necessarily equates to the possibility of free will. At best, I would think, it would mean choices could potentially be random rather than concretely determined, but still ultimately determined by behavioral traits of matter and not in any way willful choice.
Well, some are guided by God because some have made the choice to give up that free will. At the same time, there are also those who simply state that there is only influence involved in the decision making
It is my will to do God's will. What about that choice.
It isn't a choice, it's a command to be obeyed like a master to a slave. You have no choice.
1. The issue with God lying in your perfect plan scenario isn't an issue of morality, but necessity. Point being, if it's as you say, a perfect plan that entails God lying to us about having free will when we really don't ... why lie? If we don't have free will then it doesn't matter what we think or believe because we're not actually steering the boat anyway. There'd be no purpose to lying to us, there'd be no point to the whole behavior aspect of life at all (commandments, judgement, floods, Adam/Eve and the tree, etc) All of that has to do with free will. If we didn't actually have a free will of our own then there'd be no need for the whole lying aspect of the 'perfect plan'. It would all be superfluous and unnecessary, which does not a perfect plan make. And it doesn't take the ability to fathom God's reasoning to understand the 'imperfectness' of a plan that includes totally unnecessary and pointless steps.
2. You're looking at this as if both we and God exist within the same dimension where time is linear. God being separate/outside of that is the key. Within time, as we are, we are making our own choices in each moment. True, you can only make one choice in each given moment, but that choice was truly yours because you exist within time and YOU'RE the one making the decision. And you make that decision with no knowledge of future events. Thus free will.
God being apart from this universe means there's no span of time between the beginning and the end. The only way it works as you're describing is if God exists within time as well. From God's standpoint there's no before/after a decision. There's just this one timeline where everything happened this one way. But within this universe, in each given moment, it truly could have gone another way had you chosen differently. You really did have that choice in that moment.
1) I agree, to some degree. The problem is that we don't know the plan and we don't the desired outcome. We don't even know the purpose. Given all that, lying may be the only way to produce the results given, the choices made.
For instance, if we knew there was no free will, there might be people that decide that is no reason to do "right". Their fate is sealed whatever they do. And in a way, that's a valid argument - perhaps the lie is to "force" the choices the way God wants them made.
2) In understand that. To God, all time in our universe is "now". That doesn't change the fact that he knows what each decision in the "now" (future, to us) is and it doesn't change the fact that that decision cannot be made any other way.
It's difficult to speak intelligently about time in this way - the words don't fit - but that's the way I see it. It's as if God looked all around in his "now" and wrote down every decision being made at that "moment" in a big black book. Placing that book in our universe, it then contains a record of future decisions - decisions that we cannot change or the book (and God) were wrong.
Would anyone agree that God has a greater degree of free will (as in 100%) than we do because He is without a physical body?
-perhaps we are limited in the amount of free will we have because of the body.
Maybe we need to transcend it.
Conclusion: To the extent we are unable to transcend the human body... we do not have total free will.
And it is God's fault because he put us here.
Or our own.
1. Notice what you're saying. You're stating that this 'perfect plan' entails God lying to us about having free will when we don't actually have a choice, yet ....
"Given all that, lying may be the only way to produce the results given, the choices made."
"For instance, if we knew there was no free will, there might be people that decide that is no reason to do "right". Their fate is sealed whatever they do. And in a way, that's a valid argument - perhaps the lie is to "force" the choices the way God wants them made."
2. But it doesn't matter whether or not God knows because it is us that exists within time, within that moment the decision was made. We are the ones making the decisions. Time from our perspective isn't an already written book, and it's our perspective, being the ones making the decisions, that matters. From God's perspective that book is only written because it played out. And it only played out because we were the ones doing the playing. If that big black book consists of all of our choices, then it's written by us.
There is more to reality than the senses perceive.
But, no one has ever shown that, so it is a statement of blind faith that has no validity whatsoever, hence we can ignore it until something as you suggest comes along. But then, we will have to use our senses in order to perceive it.
Your statement then turns to gibberish.
I am not entirely sure what part of my argument you are disagreeing with, based on the initial response. However:
Based on this: "he first chapter shows how the entirety of existence followed God's commands to the letter. Then comes Adam and Eve who are set in this very scientific-like test scenario where there's only one rule set by the same creator that all the rest of existence follows without question. And they break it. They're the first creation capable of behaving contrary to God's will. By design."
"Take the story of Abraham and Isaac for an example. Why would God, having knowledge of past and present, have to test Abraham? Because choices made of free will are not 'of God'. If God had not interjected into the timeline and created a situation that made Abraham choose whether or not to sacrifice his son, then his decision never would have existed and God actually would not have known whether or not Abraham would obey. See what I mean? Free will is a powerful thing. We are able to create, and add to this existence, decisions/actions/creations that are not 'of God' but are 'of us'."
and this: "His perfect plan still plays out. In fact, stories about a regrettable flood, dispersing the people of Babel because of what they were doing and not because it was 'part of the plan', punishing the Israelites to keep them in line, showing his power over the natural world to sway the behavior of free willed people, means He has taken action to ensure an outcome that He can see and we cannot. The intended end. Thus, a perfect plan. The ability to bring about an existence where free will actually exists that's still possible and not doomed to eventually deteriorate."
"My 'proof', as far as how to read that story, is the rest of the bible. That one part of the story is clearly told and makes clear throughout the rest of the bible that the entire theme to the whole thing is that humans behave contrary to God's will. He both rewarded the Israelites (manna from heaven) and punished them (striking down some in sight of others) to try to keep them in line with His commands. And over and over again the story is the same where one generation would fall in line, but within a generation or two it was right back to how it was. Don't you think things would have gone much more smoothly for God if it were all going to plan? Remember it says he 'regretted' having to send the flood. You don't have 'regret' if things are going to plan. "
and this: "Besides, why is it God's ways or reasonings are unfathomable, yet your assessment that a perfect God with a perfect plan cannot coexist with the concept of free will doesn't apply in the same way? Couldn't it be your limited perception (compared to God, not meant as a dig) is what makes the two so seemingly incompatible?"
You appear to be denying premise 1 or 6. I'm going to put them down again for clarity purposes.
Premise 1: If God is perfect, then all the consequences of his actions must be perfect.
Premise 6: If every human being's will must end up producing perfect consequences, then our wills are not free.
So I think you deny premise 1 by pointing out the flood. God may be perfect, but the consequences of his actions need not necessarily be perfect. Assuming I am understanding you correctly, this would be strange. There is a huge debate in philosophy about whether intentions, consequences, or some combination of both are what matters when evaluating the ethics of a particular action. What you seem to be claiming is that God has a plan that is perfect, but human beings free will is part of that plan, and since humans are not perfect and are free, every action God takes isn't necessarily perfect. So in essence, God doesn't have the capacity to foresee everything in advance because of free will! It places a knowledge restriction on him.
As for premise 6, you seem to be claiming that, even though we do have free will,God is going to intervene to ensure that our free will is used "correctly." So with the flood example, people misused their free will and God basically had to start over. This is similar to saying that your child has free will, but anytime they make a decision that threatens the viability of your plan for their life, you intervene to get them back on track. This sense of free will doesn't seem to be to do justice to what free will actually means. If God wants our wills free, why would he continually intervene to ensure that, in the long run, we actually proceed with his plan? That seems unnecessary.
Back to premise 1. There is a problem with interpreting this premise, after I have read over it again. Does it mean perfect consequences in the long run, or every consequence, long and short? I think both interpretations are plausible, but I think long-term consequences probably adheres better with accounting for free will. So in essence, you won't be able to deny premise 1 anymore, because God does ensure that his plan is fulfilled in the long run.
This leaves premise 6. I think you can plausibly deny it, but only by using a very restricted version of free will that does adhere with the meaning of free, but in a very odd way. It seems to be saying, "you have free will, but only in as much as your will does not veer too far from my ultimate plan, which WILL be fulfilled." If enough of our free will's violate God's plan (since one person not following won't necessarily endanger the plan), he will intervene by possibly killing us. So, how this will be consistent with a God of love that truly lets human beings choose their course of actions, at this moment, escapes me.
I also apologize for using snippets from your conversation with Wilderness. I was looking for clarification with what you meant in your response.
It's a combination of 1 and 6 that are the problem because free will IS the goal. God is perfect, and perfectly created beings capable of behaving in accordance to their own individual wills. So, if free will is the intent, and free will inherently allows for "imperfection" because it is truly free, then the consequences of God's actions are perfect. Free will being free is the perfect outcome because that was the intent.
But there is a knowledge restriction, by His own design. It's kind of like that whole 'can God create a stone so large even He can't lift it' kind of thing. He created us with a will that is totally independent of His. Now, you and I can't fool Him. Once free will existed in the world it plays out only one way along the one timeline. He adds a flood and it plays another way. He adds dispersing people at Babel and it plays out that way.
Think of God like a programmer, with existence being a program and time only running when the program is. When it's all just His code, it behaves only one particular way. There's no input from anyone or anything else. It just runs beginning to end the same way. However, if code written by someone else passes data into that program it can have unintended affects. So, the programmer would code to anticipate that input and still arrive at the desired outcome.
The flood wasn't God intervening to make sure we use our will "correctly". The flood was a necessary edit to still arrive at the desired outcome. He had created Adam and Eve to live with this capability, but descendants of Adam and Eve began marrying naturally evolved humans (Gen6) and passed on this capability to offspring. This is when it says there was 'wickedness' in humanity. These beings intermingling wasn't intended, thus warranting a flood. It's things like the flood that make it apparent that free will is very much something free of God's control, again, by design. That's what the whole book is about. Like the 10 commandments. What would be the point of even making rules in a 'perfect' scenario as you speak of it? And those people continually disobeying, as well, should show you that the premises you're setting up don't adhere to what's being described.
The plan IS free will. And the plan succeeded. And God's involvement throughout the OT was to realize the birth of Jesus (the flood, Babel, Abraham, the Israelites, the Exodus, all those rules about who to procreate with that were specific to the line Jesus was eventually born of). Now it's our part. Now that we have our own individual will, we have to willfully choose to conform to His authority in the life to come. Free will in a finite/temporary existence can only be so destructive. But free will AND eternal life.. that's another story. Notice blocking Adam and Eve from the tree of life was the very first thing God did. If that is the plan, for free will to exist, and for free willed beings to experience free will in a finite existence where the impact can be controlled so that they can then choose of their own volition to participate in what's to come, then the plan is perfect with the existence of free will.
Sex was the apple. Every day some teenager or young adult gets it into his mind to have sex and then his paradise is destroyed. I think the story of Adam and Eve is based on the child growing up into adulthood. What brings forth adulthood and wisdom? Finding a mate and having a family. The family home is paradise. The child is like Adam or Eve. Innocent, joyous, problem free. Until the apple is presented. Perhaps it's all part of the grand design for humans.
I think your comparison is very on point. Sex is a 'forbidden fruit' to young people that does indeed bring with it wisdom. It's a temptation like many others that can greatly alter our trajectory in life and that brings with it invaluable, though not always welcomed or wanted, life lessons.
I cannot agree. When the bible was written, or even compiled, sex was not the evil, forbidden subject that later church action turned it into.
It was a natural thing, no different for man than barnyard animals "performing" - animals that everyone knew, owned and cared for. Marriage and other rules grew up around the act, but the act itself was not dirty somehow or avoided in polite conversation. Because of this there was no reason to couch the discussion in more acceptable terms or to talk around it; people of the time were comfortable with that natural act.
Sex brings the energy down the cerebral centers to the lowest one. The higher the energy level up the spine the more happiness and bliss. It is science. The Indian Yogi's got it right. Look it up. There is tons of info about the science of religion.
I have zero idea what you are speaking of in the "energy level" of the spine. Certainly there is bone there (no particular energy level) and certainly there are nerves there (an almost continual flow of electricity through the nervous tissue) but the "lowest cerebral center" or bring energy down those centers or up the spine - I have no idea what that means. Are you speaking of kinetic energy, with the spine moving around in the body? Electromagnetic, as in light particles or gamma radiation? Electrical, as in movement of electrons? Potential, as in potential energy of position? What type of known energy are those Yogi's talking about?
Likewise, I have no idea what the "science of religion" refers to unless you mean the stories and imaginations of ancient tribes. Or the denial of known facts that modern science has uncovered and understands. Whatever you mean, though, it doubt it has anything to do with the cultural attitude towards the human sexual act, which is what I was talking about.
chakras are the energy centers in the spine. There are seven. The base of the spine contains the first and is usually connected to the color red... the second chakra, orange and the third, yellow, the fourth, green. etc. Look up chakras.
"science" refers to the facts regarding the spiritual essence and design that we were made with. Metaphysics pertains to that which is beyond the physical. ("meta" meaning beyond.) This is why God must be perceived through the sense of intuition. He is to be found/perceived on the spiritual plane, rather than seen with eyes, felt with fingers, or heard with ears on this physical plane. This is where meditation comes in. It is subtle, but Jesus brought us to the spiritual aspect of life. He even even declared that He came to reveal things hidden in the past. However, He was talking to people who knew not about energy, electricity light currents, electromagnetic energy. So, he spoke in parables. If your eye is single your whole body will be seen as light, he mentioned a couple times. If you meditate and perceive God you will perceive the truth, fact, scientific fact that your body is made of the energy (of God.) We know this to be true since to gets down to pure energy in the body that causes it to exist: cells, atoms, electrons, protons.
As far as I can see, "chakra" is medicine man mumbo jumbo that makes up for lack of biology knowledge. There is nowhere on the spine that collects more energy than any other spot. Energy does not collect in either bone or nervous tissue.
Pretty much the same for "metaphysics" and "spiritual plane". While we can trick the brain into sensing things that aren't there, it doesn't mean there IS something there. It means we tricked the brain.
There is no "sense of intuition", either; intuition comes from within the brain, examining all available data (often unperceived by the reasoning part of the mind) and adding it up to a conclusion. It is not a "sense" in any form of the word.
Finally, when you decide God is made of energy you are either stating something you know nothing about or merely saying he is made of the same stuff we are. That is extremely doubtful as He originated in an entirely different universe than ours.
-have it your way. I wish I hadn't bothered. I will not be posting any more posts that will just be trampled.
I am sorry.
Your post was not "trampled" - Rad Man attempted to educate, he provided facts and useful information. Is it that you are not interested in education?
While I understand what you're saying, this highlights something I find troubling about us modern people with our modern knowledge. While you're right in that there is little to no correlation between modern western medicine/physical science and concepts in eastern medicine and traditions, I cringe at how flippantly these age-old ideas of the past, formed before our scientific awakening, are dismissed as just dumb old humans making things up to explain what they didn't understand. It's like we're all too willing dismiss the concepts and ideas of our ancestors as if they were just ignorant people who had nothing of value to offer us in these modern times.
Science is only the study of the physical world. So, through a scientific lens, it would seem that the 'physical' world is all that actually exists. But is that true? Technically, science is blind to the human mind, yet we know the mind exists. Who's to say there's not an element to existence, also beyond the scope of the physical sciences, yet just as intertwined into this existence? Are we really so certain of our modern knowledge that we're so quick and so willing to dismiss the ideas and concepts of our ancestors that they held so dear? Do we not at least give some credit to their intuition? These kinds of concepts, like those associated with yoga and tantric practices, concepts employed by numerous generations of people over the course of many centuries, have meant a lot to a lot of people. Just because there's no "physical" evidence, does that mean there's absolutely nothing to this? Are we sure?
I can't shake the feeling that we can sometimes be a bit too flippant about our ancestors and they're contributions. It's like we modern humans with our modern knowledge are the equivalent of know-it-all teenagers who have gone off to college for a semester, read a few books, then came back home telling our parents they have no idea what they're talking about and everything they know is wrong. Human intuition brought humanity to where we are today. Should we be so quick to throw out these concepts held in such high regard by our ancestors? Are we really so confident in what we now know to say for certain that there's absolutely no value to any of the concepts and ideas born of humanity before the dawn of modern science?
You and wilderness were having a wonderful discussion before this nonsense was brought it. Sorry is anyone is offended by that, but it has to be said. If we take these old traditions further and label them religious we have even more problems. The Quran teaches that the earth is shaped like and egg, it's clearly not but billions claim it is. It also teaches that the responsibility of our night and day lies in the obit of our sun, which is again nonsense, yet millions swear by it. A few years back a friend told me she just came from a conference that she paid for where an elderly explained the power of the sun. He claims to have not eaten for years and just collects his energy from the sun. She bought it (literally) hook line and sinker. She also claims that skin cancer is the result of sun block and not sun rays. Tell that to my mom who had skin cancer before she ever used sun block.
Now, you two get back to your discussion involving free will. You know I have my thoughts on the matter (and I'm right), but I still find the discussion meaningful and interesting.
There he is. Sup Rad!
I get what you're saying and I understand that at some point you've got to start ruling some things out. My comment was more a cautionary statement of being careful what you toss out, understanding on what grounds you're tossing, and whether or not that reasoning is sound and absolute as to warrant tossing.
On a side note, I wanted to be sure to let you and JMcFarland know that I will be on the Dogma Debate podcast on 7/24. It's an atheist talk show that JM referred me to. Their studio is near me and I was asked to come be on the show in studio. If you happen to run into JM and you think about it, please pass this along to her as well. I keep meaning to email her and keep forgetting.
I agree, but in this case we are talking about energy levels in the spin or some such stuff and wilderness as usual make a very convincing argument.
I've already passed the message on and I'll have to see where I can find it. Sounds very exciting.
Now get back to your intriguing discussion with wilderness. This topic in particular is of interest to me.
I'm looking forward to it. Their site is here and you can of course find the show that day, as well as previous shows, under the 'podcast' link .... http://www.dogmadebate.com/
As for our discussion about free will, that's what pulled me into this discussion in the first place as it's a primary topic of interest for me as well. I'll have to go back and look, but I believe the ball was back in wilderness' side of the court as far as our discussion was going, and I don't want to badger him unnecessarily.
Please excuse me for going off topic, but I believe you have made this statement before, about the sun and cancer. The sun does not cause skin cancer, the cancer is already in the body, it just ripens it and brings it to the surface to be sloughed off.
If it brings it to the surface then it causes it.
...no the body causes it. The body contains cancer cells all the time. If the body is affected by the environment, diet or genetic weakness then those cancer cells do their thing. Normally they don't. It has something to do with the brain of the cell going crazy and then reproducing mindlessly, so to speak. So I have heard.
I like that sloughing off theory. Of course around here everything has to be provable... which I am sure it isn't (provable).
Oh boy. The propanganda in daily newspapers and national publications each year( although often promoted by people with doctoral degrees) stating that the " sun causes cancer" is as ridiculous as saying "the tonsil is poisoning the whole body"... actually it is the putrid condition of the body that is poisoning the tonsil, or the skin, in this case. All the sun does is ripen and bring the cancer that is already there to the surface, wherein, the waste matter can slough off, so the body can heal. This is why we must work inside the body, as well as outside the body with the sun, which will harmoniously speed the curative process and eliminate the problem so there is no recurrence. I could go on and give you more info on this matter (not saying it would sway what you believe to be true) but it is someone elses thread. Again I apologize. Maybe some other time
I see, so people with darker skin are better protected from cancer because they take better care of their bodies? Smoking causes lung and other cancers. Statistically if your a smoker that's what's going to kill you. To much sun causes skin damage and can lead to cancer. We only need a few minutes a day to get the required amount of vitamin D. To much sun is one of the triggers or cause of skin cancer.
I detect a bit of sarcasm. Light skinned individuals must be careful, but dark skinned folks can get a very heavy burn. Indiscreet exposure can cause 3rd degree burns, shock, and death. I would not venture to say darker skinned folks have an advantage because of their diet, but because of the melanin in their skin. According to you, everyone in Africa, the tropics, and all the equatorial regions would perish from skin cancer, when actually the incidence is very rare in these climates. Agreed, you can cover every inch of your body and get the vit.D requirement thru your eyes (take off the sunglasses for about a 1/2 hour). Yeah, smoking is a leading cause of lung cancer and a cause for others, but unfortunately our envionment (chemicals) has overtaken all other causes for cancer and most other illnesses (dirty water, food, soil, air etc.) Helios therapy is very important, as the sun is the Great Doctor of all times. But, this theraoy must always be done with caution because the sun (thuugh being a healer) is like fire, which can either provide gentle warmth or it can burn a city down.
Sun bathing can beneficially aid many skin problems when ther is moisture in the body. A blond person who has never done sunbathing before should start out with no more than 1 min. on the first day, adding a min. each day and this time should be kept accurately by stop watch or clock, because the feel of the sun is so luxurious, one might desire to stay in it just a little longer and can cause some serious trouble. Within 30 days a person can be sunning up to an hour total time. Brunettes often start with 2 min. front and back and can add 4 min. a day. A person who has been sunbathing for years and has done it regularly each season may start with a little more, 5 front and back, for the brunette, 2 and 2 for the blond. If done gradually and judiciously, this can give power to the body. Cancer, not likely. So yes Radman, even though I am a 'black' man (light skinned tho), I deal with people of all race and ethnic groups BTW, Headly, once again I am enjoying your input.
One other thing Rad, I would never put anything on my body I could 'nt eat. Lotions, soap, shampoo, deodorant etc. Be careful my friend, be very careful.
First you say skin cancer is not related to the sun, but to how we take care of our body.
Then when I show you that lighter skinned people get skin cancer more often you say that I said darker skinned people should parish from skin cancer. I said no such thing. I merely am demonstrating that it's the over exposure to the sun that's the cause. Don't advise people to sun bath, it's damaging to the skin. Ask any dermatologist.
Your good or bad health is definitely related to how you maintain your body. I agreed over exposure could be damaging, but not cancerous. The cancer was already in the body. I gave you a simple reason why cancer can be in the body. What is cancer Radman? It has nothing to due with over exposure to the sun. A lack of sun maybe. Where did you show me light skinned people get skin cancer more often? I most have missed that. 'White' folks may be more susceptible (what in particular other than burns) to skin irritation from the sun (and as I explained) need to be more careful. By reading your opinion, one would think that anyone living in a hot climate or with some time spent during the summer at the beach would be a victim of skin cancer, light skinned, white skinned, dark skinned or any other skin. If the cancer is already present in the body, could be. But the sun is not going to create cancer in the body. And any dermatologist worth his salt will tell you that. You keep putting all those chemicals they want to sell you on your body to be absorbed and keep feeding it that "mucus loaded" garbage food and you won't ever have to go outside my friend, you will be extremely fortunate if acne and excema is all you get.
So you seem to be saying skin cancer has nothing to do skin colour. It's how we treat our bodies, right? The skin cancer foundation disagrees with you.
http://www.skincancer.org/prevention/sk … n-of-color
"Caucasians are the primary victims of skin cancer."
Is the first line on that link. Further
"The most common forms of skin cancer are basal cell carcinoma (BCC), squamous cell carcinoma (SCC), and melanoma. Each of these has been linked to intermittent and/or chronic sun exposure."
" light-skinned people have about a tenfold greater risk of dying from skin cancer, compared with dark-skinned persons, under equal sunlight exposure."
http://www.cdc.gov/cancer/skin/basic_in … actors.htm
The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention listed "A lighter Natural Skin color as the first risk factor for skin cancer.
Yep. I'm saying skin cancer and any other cancer has nothing to do with the color of one's skin. It comes down to the good or bad health of your body. If your ph is in balance and you are eating a mucus free diet, drinking clean water, exercising, and proper rest, you ain't going to get sick. What happens is we stray from the things or never even know about the things that will keep us healthy and it is designed that way. What is an unbalanced ph? It's an acidic condition of the body (cells). But wait, it's not that you are not forwarned. In the early stages of an acidicicph in the body's tissues, the warning symptoms are mild. These include such things as skin eruptions, headaches, allegies, colds, flu, and sinus problems. These symptoms are frequently treated ( manipulated) with anti-biotic drugs and suppressive medications. With continued suppression of the warning signals of an acidic and nutrient deficient (most of us are malnurished and don't even know it) envirionment, more serious symptoms arise with disease driven deeper, (we call the beginning a dis-ease, it doesn't become a disease until it gets to be chronic). Weakened organs and systems start to give way ( heart, lungs, thyroid, adrenals, liver, kidneys, etc.). Unfortunately, symptoms manipulation with pharmacology creates magical shell game of switching diseases, creating more serious symptoms and disease conditions in the future that is totally different from the original dis-ease (maybe your sun induced cancer). Of course once the dis-ease has grown into cancer you have to deal with that. But it was cancer long before it was brought to the surface. Now you may think I'm insane, but there is only one disease. A weak area in the body that does not have the ability to move toxins. Plain and simple. A healthy body is determined by the health of each cell. All disease originates at the cellular level and not at the organ or system level. Healthy cells create healthy tissue. Healthy tissues create healthy organs, like the heart, lungs, liver, skin etc. Healthy organs create healthy systems, like the endocrine system and the immune system, and healthy systems make up a healthy body. The sun does not create skin cancer. I can't invision any medical personnel telling you not to get out and enjoy some sunshine. Some chemical being absorbed or that putrid body we continue to deny is the culprit my friend.
The statistics clearly show that people with light coloured skin develop skin cancer 10 times more that people with dark coloured skin. According to your theory people with dark skin eat and take care of the bodies 10 better the the light counter parts? That is ridiculous.
Radman, why do you read into things that people do not say? I've noticed a trend with you I never said or implied any of that. Why do dark skinned folks top the statistics in cancer, heart disease, heart attacks, stroke, diabetes, high blood pressure, sickle cell, etc.? One school of thought (the main one) is because of the poor way we take care of our body. Why light skinned people contract skin cancer more often, I don't know. But the main reason the get skin is because of the poor way they take care of their body. The sun has nothing to do with the creation of skin cancer and no other cancer. Again, the lack of it may. I asked you before. What is cancer?
Out of curiosity, are you attempting to make a great philosophical point out of the question: what is cancer?
It's an abnormal division of bad cells that happens too quickly for the body's own immune system to defend against it.
Now, do you feel that you can move on from that question?
Three things come to mind and i hope you are not offended by what I am about to say. 1) No, no great point. 2) That is a true but simple explaination. 3) Is it alright to engage in a conversation with Radman? He seems to have knowledge on this subject and I'm interested in his views.
I was just puzzled. Yes, while I understand that the answer I gave is simplistic, I can also say with surety that while medical science can indeed point to certain factors of caring for ourselves as being preventative measures for certain cancers, there are others for which a specific cause has never been found, and therefore, no preventative measures can be taken.
Not offended at all.
Have a great discussion.
I am a natural practitioner. Anything or anyone where/whom has info that might aid me helping someone overcome a condition, has my attention. Thank you for your patience and blessing
Don't advice people with light skin to sun bath. Step outside for a few minutes everyday or take supplements. People with dark skin living farther north should always take Vitamin D supplements especially during the winter.
Radman. You win. The discussion is one sided. Believe whatever you want, I'm fine with that. I addressed the sunbathing of the fairer skinned folks in an earlier post. Don't use the sun block. I'm not against the medical industry. Emergency, trauma, crisis medicine they do an excellent job. That's what they are geared up to do. As far as causes, treatments of illness.... Do you still believe in the Pasteur germ theory? One parting shot. In 1961 a codex was created called " codex alimetarius" which dynamically changed the way we eat. This codex is made up of 1000's of standards and guidelines. One of them, they have called the " Vitamins and Minerals guidelines" (VMG) and it is designed to permit only ultra low doses of vital nutrients that are found naturally in foods and make clinically effective nutrients illegal. Thru this codex nutrients are ultimately being categorized as "toxins". Beneficiary of this pseudo-SCIENCE is of course the pharmaceutical industry. http://www.healthusa.ord. Don't find this compelling enough? In 1975 we find the 1st usage of " Recombinant DNA Technology". But the 1st use of the term goes back to 1942. So what is "recombinant"? It is relating to or containing genetically engineered DNA or produced by genetic engineering (e.g. recombinant Bovine growth hormone) Something we still find in our meat today. You have no clue as to what is going on. Like I don't understand evolution (never studied it) you don't understand disease (causes). I just took the opportunity to give someone another viewpoint. But I can't help myself man I want too see if you know anything about health, or as usual... What is vit.D's main function? Clue: I wrote about it today.Shalum
Don't tell me what the cause of cancer is when you admit you don't know why light skinned people are 10 times more likely to develop skin cancer. Nutrition is important, I'm not saying it's not and I've spent a fair amount of money on a "natural" doctor who is also an MD who had some rather good luck treating my kid's ADHD. In the end though I had to give in and do as my Ped. recommended.
You did address advising fair skinned to sunbath. You advised to work their way into it. That's poor advice.
Rad, Rad, Rad. I'm willing to let this go. I don't know why light skinned people get skin cancer more than dark skinned people. It's a good question. I do know the sun does not cause cancer. I have given you a simple explaination for the cause of cancer and illness in general. I'm willing to go further, I would just love to get a little input from you. You seem to have knowledge in this matter. What say ye? I've watched you badger folks for answers to your questions since I've been here Answer mine and let me get a better understanding why you feel the way you do. I in return will give you (hopefully) a better understanding why I feel as I do. Or just simply let it go. There are literally millions of people that are taking my advice and go out and enjoy some rays. I would be willing to bet on bright, sunny days, you are in the house by yourself ( not talking about your family in particular). My advice has been passed down for years. No rocket science. Just good, healthy advice I've taken from the "shouders of giants I've stood on" and has proven to be true. Handsome kid you have. Does he engage in any outside activities (baseball, football, basketball, rollerblading, hiking, fishing, scouting, etc.), or do you keep him shut up in the house during daylight hours? No harm meant (most kids his age, during summer vacation would be outside, enjoying the weather, I would think). Did your Mom keep you locked down during the day. You honestly believe a hour in the sun will cause cancer? According to you we should all have cancer and be dead or near death. Naw Rad, I'll let it go. No more responses. Shalum
Robert, I'm sure you are a well meaning nice intelligent person. I'll answer your question the very best I can. I grew up outside all the time, we never had sunscreen at all. My mom was a little more fair skinned then me or my Dad and she starting to get skin cancer at age 40. She also spent her childhood outside. Dermatologist tell us young skin is particularly susceptible to skin damage. That picture is of me as a young child coming from playing outside most of the day. This morning I went for a 3 hour bike ride with 2 friends. It was cloudy when I left so didn't put sunscreen on, which was stupid to say the least. 3 hours in the sun unprotected is way to much. My kids are older, one is working, one is gone for a bike ride to meet up with some friends and one just came in from cutting the grass. I see a dermatologist every 6 months to give me the once over because I've had a few spots removed that she said were not cancer yet, but on the way. I've been clean the last few years probably because I follow her advice. Don't take this the wrong way, but real doctors say excessive sun causes skin cancer and have evidence to back up that claim. If you bothered to read the links I posted you'd understand that. I could spend the time explaining why fair skinned people develop skin cancer 10 times the rate of darker skinning people, but I instead posted links where experts explained it to you better than I could.
You are correct and doctors used to say tans were good for us, but that was before we understood why we get skin cancer and why it's rate is increasing as our ozone layer is diminishing.
I have been dishonest and I apologize, I came back. Cancer- as long as you can digest you have a very good chance of survival. From time to time you have probably seen stories or ads for some wonder product- an exotic herb, a vit. or some other mysterious sounding substance that is guaranteed to cure cancer. No such thing as a magic bullet or wonder cure. Cancer must be attacked from a variety of directions. Cancer cell growth is caused by an acid condition (as are all diseases) in and around the cells. If we look at cancer, it is a whole body systems disease from head to toe that shows up as a tumor site in the body's weakest links or target zones. These zones are the storage bins from excess acids and toxins built up in the blood ( cancer is in the blood and shows up in blood analysis). These come from overindulgence of food acids, beverage acids ( a heavy drinker of soft drinks, beer, and liquor)), industrial acids, toxic emotions, and poisonous chemicals (that we saturate our body's with) that the liver, kidneys,, and lymph nodes could not expel fast enough. The result, O2 deprivation leading to cell fermentation where healthy cells begin to rot. These rotting cells and their acids stick together like glue and bond to healthy neighboring cells where they also begin to ferment and rot creating a domino effect. This acid fermentation process is cancer. A leading cellular scientist based on years of research came to the conclusion that cancer and aids are nothing more than an electrical cellular disturbance due to oxygen deprivation, leading to cell asphyxiation which then leads to an imbalanced acidic pH envirionment. This process triggers disorganization of the cellular microzymas to a morbid evolution from bacteria to yeast, fungus and molds and their production of mycotoxin waste matter ( which the sun brings to the surface to be cast off and your REAL doctors either don't know how or don't want to know how). As Dr. Young says in his book Sick and Tired: Reclaim Your Inner Terrain "Cancer is a four letter word-ACID". This is especially true with lactid acid as a waste product due to the low oxygen level and waste product of yeast and fungus. Dr. Otto Warburg, a 2 time Nobel Prize winner stated in his book, The Metabolism of Tumors, that the primary cause of cancer was the replacement of oxygen in the respiratory cell chemistry by the fermentation of sugar. The growth of cancer cells is initiated by a fermentation process which can only be triggered in the absence of oxygen at the cellular level (where all disease and healing begin). Just like overworked muscles, cells manufacture lactid acid and other acidic compounds, causing acid pH. If you hold your breath, oxygen is cut off and carbon dioxide is built up as an acid waste, and you will eventually die through asphyziation. If your body's blood pH goes below 7, oxygen is cut off and you will go into a coma or die. The blood performs a balancing act in order to maintain the blood pH within a safe range of 7.3 - 7.4. Some cells instead of dying as normal cells do in an acid environment may adapt a nd survive by becoming abnormal cells, like primitive yeast cells. These abnormal primitive yeast cells are called malignent cells. Malignent renegade cells do not communicate with brain function, or with our DNA memory code. Therefore, malignent cells grow indefinitely and without order. This biological disorder is what science calls cancer. So unless an uncologist focuses on de-acidification, detoxification, oxygenation, and fixing nutritional deficiencies with a cancer patient, their treatment modalities will be futile. Why not go to documentary. com and see what some UNREAL drs and real ones have done with cancer and then ask why this/they has/have been squashed. Keep on using that sunscreen. If you can't eat it, don't put it on your. Get real, the sun does not create cancer. BTW, we specialize in diabetes, heart (haven't loss a patient yet) stroke, high (or low) blood pressure, pre-natal care, and cancer prevention. Not bad for some unreal drs. As the ol' sayin goes, not crackin just fackin
I know exactly what you are saying but perhaps you don't. Again you said the main reason people get cancer is because of the poor way we take care of our bodies. If that were the case then cancer would not discriminate against white people in the order of 10 to 1 as it does. The sun and over exposure to it is the main cause of skin cancer. That's a fact.
Now you say you don't know why white people get skin cancer more often. I know you don't know even though I've explained it a few times now. OVER EXPOSURE TO THE SUN. Look at the links I posted a while back.
And the main reason people get cancer and most other illnesses is because they don't take care of their body. White people are not discriminated against 10-1 with cancer or any other leading causes of death. Look at the ones I just gave you and show me where they are the leading cancidates for those diseases including cancer. Wait, maybe in Canada, but not here in the States. You're not answering my question. I have watched you say this to others many times. If you don't know, say so, no big deal man. If you ask me a question I'm going to try and answer it. If I don't know , I will tell you I don't know. I'm not going to feel any less of a person because I don't know something. And lets throw out that word "ignorant", it simply means one doesn't know. Contrary to belief, none of us knows everything about everything. I'm going to rephrase my question. What do you think is the cause of cancer?
The leading factor for skin cancer is over exposure to the sun and not just in Canada. Everywhere. People with like skin are 10 times more likely to get skin cancer, so once again according to your theory white people must not take care of their bodies properly.
Look back at all those links I posted.
Good question. What about those who are born with HIV, heroin addicts, etc. A lot of it has to do unfortunately with our parents. I'm not saying ALL childhood dis-ease comes from our parents, but a lot of it does. Children born with an uneven line in their lower teeth are usually the recipients of a mother who had little calcium in her system and the jawbone did not develope correctly. It is a known fact that there is a lack of adequate calcium in the diet of the average adult today. One reason, of course, is the use of processed foods which have been robbed of much of the calcium they originally had. The next cause is the use of so much inorganic sugars and starches (the starches turn to sugar). This sugar leaches out calcium from the body of the mother. The fetus is also drawing on the mothers calcium for self preservation. The young mother-to-be then wonders why she has varicose veins, loss of teeth, and charlie horses and muscle weakness, etc. This all happens from a lack of adequate calcium to take care of both the mother and the forthcoming child. Mother Nature is more concerned with the reproduction than with the one doing the producing. This is the reason the baby will draw from the mother as much calcium and nourishment as it can get, and unless she is following a good diet, both will suffer. When the proper program is followed, the fetus will develope as Mother Nature intended and have a strong, perfect body. The umbilical coed is giving the precious little one just as good a blood tranfusion as the mother can suplly by her nutritional intake (good or bad). Of course, a proper diet does not include items such as cigarettes, pastries, soft drinks, liquor, or coffee. The process of nutrition continues on after the birth of the baby and the umbilical cord is cut. The blood flow carrying this perfect nutrient changes somewhat, as it is now handled by the mammary glands. This is short, but... I hope this helped.
True, and to a large degree I don't disagree. While we have zero evidence of a "spiritual world" or a "world of the mind" (and I am thus very skeptical of both) but that there is much in biology we don't know is indisputable.
Just don't tell me that "energy" (and we know what energy is and can measure it) collects at particular points down the spine. If you think that something collects there, say so - just don't tell me it is gamma radiation or some other kind of physical energy. I will certainly ask you to prove it, and you won't be able to, but don't use that as an excuse to give me a story that is patently false.
I get what you're saying and I agree. I don't so much have an issue with referring to it as 'energy' as I know in the metaphysical context that term is often used and is not one and the same as physically detectable energy as we generally think of it. It's more of a spiritual energy.
However, she did also say "it is science", then said "'science' refers to the facts regarding the spiritual essence and design that we were made with. Metaphysics pertains to that which is beyond the physical. ("meta" meaning beyond.)" That's where she loses me. The very term 'metaphysical' means it's outside the wheelhouse of the natural sciences and I'm not sure how you establish 'facts' in regard to a 'spiritual essence'.
And in looking for science-based info on 'chakras' I found that it is indeed billed that way, but never really explained. They then just go into an explanation about the 7 colors of the light spectrum and how they're associated with each of the chakras. So, the science stuff as far as light frequencies is accurate, but the tie between these and spiritual energy in the body is never reconciled.
It seems that everything in creation is based on the spectrum of the rainbow... the separation of light energy. It a recurring theme in more ways than one.
I guess the spirit world is beyond the world of physical science. That is a profound realization! Thanks, atheists! Now how do we prove metaphysical realities?
There has to be a way!
It's going to be tough indeed to prove the existence of something we can't detect, and cannot even detect physical results of. It's much the same as God - we can't detect Him. We can't build a machine to extend our normal senses that can detect Him. We can't find anything in the universe that we can know is the result of Him or His actions.
It makes claims of existence, and certainly characteristics, very difficult to accept.
Science doesn't care about the spirit world unless it can be measured or identified, as yet it can not. What do you mean by metaphysical realities?
Mass is not based on the frequencies of light. Neither are subatomic particles, gravity, the speed of light or anything else I can think of offhand. Not the fusion reaction in a star and not the orbit of a planet.
The energy of a light particle IS dependent on the frequency (or wavelength, take your pick), but I wouldn't call that something in "creation".
Musical notes are actually based on what is known as the chromatic scale:
(Einstein loved music)
Astrology is also based on the twelve colors of the chromatic scale.
(S. I. Newton was greatly influenced by astrology)
There are not twelve colors in the chromatic scale. There are twelve frequencies of vibration; sound. The chromatic scale has nothing to do with color or light.
Why is it then named that? Who knows?
Really, who's colour spectrum? The human visible spectrum is often divided up into arbitrary named colours, the spectrum is continuous. There are many wavelengths in the electromagnetic spectrum the human eye cannot detect such as ultraviolet and infrared.
The chromatic chart for color is not arbitrary!" Indeed, it is based on the colors of the prism...(refracted sun light) and are named accordingly (as everyone knows: roygbiv)
"... now we are discussing frequencies "the human eye cannot detect." ah ha! ah ha! We're getting closer! Some frequencies of radiation are detectable even if the human eye cannot detect them. It just depends on the instrument of detection...right? What instrument detects or reveals ultra-violet and infrared wave lengths??
BTW Pythagorus way back in 495 BC named it the CHROMATIC for the following reason:
Because the note of E vibrates the color yellow.
And F: yellow-green
and F#: green
and G: green-blue,
and G#: blue
and A: blue-violet
and A#: violet
and B: red-violet (indigo)
and C: red
and C#: red-orange
and D: orange
and D#: orange-yellow.
Don't be silly.
The note E vibrates (sound vibration, of mass particles) at a frequency of 41.2034 cycles per second.
The color yellow (electromagnetic radiation, or photons of light) vibrates at a frequency of around 530,000,000,000,000 cycles per second.
Not only is the medium inconsistent (matter vs space) so is the frequency, by a factor of more than 10^12. Sound is not light, the note E is not yellow.
( Can't get away with anything around here. )
-actually when the Greeks came up with the system, it stands to reason, they had NO WAY to relate it to reality as you just have. They were not able to scientifically measure as modern day scientists are able to do.
It was just a system to help them identify the notes. Same with astrology...in line with the characteristics of the seasons. So cold winter is in the cool tones. Spring is getting warmer: green. Summer is depicted by the hottest of the colors: yellow. Fall: orange. Winter: purple... and going into spring: blue.
Capricorn: Purple (December/January)
Aquarius: Purple-blue (February)
Pisces: Blue (March)
Aries: Green-blue ( April)
Taurus: Green (May)
Gemini: Green-yellow (June)
Cancer: Yellow (July)
Leo: Yellow-orange (August)
Virgo: Orange (September)
Libra: Orange-red (October)
Scorpio: Red (November)
Sagittarius Red-purple (November/ December)
I personally think there is some potential legitimacy in these eastern mystic ideas forged over the centuries, which is why I interjected that original statement. And I can even see some relevance where the ideas surrounding light are concerned. After all, light was the very first thing specifically mentioned in the creation account, and sunlight plays a significant role in everything that came after, including establishing the planet's water cycle, the creation of the oxygenated atmosphere, and of course the sun plays a significant role in life on this planet. It's been an ever-present resource throughout our evolution and I'm sure there are affects it has on our bodies that still aren't fully understood.
Where you get into trouble is when an attempt is made to legitimize these kinds of ideas by claiming there is scientific support. If the tie to science isn't sound, then these kinds of claims by association make the age-old ideas they're attempting to legitimize seem less credible. It can be damaging. Chakras and other eastern concepts are speaking of spiritual energy and is therefore outside the jurisdiction of science. Finding no physical evidence of the meta-physical is not strange, but when proponents for the meta-physical try to substantiate with claims of scientific relevance it takes credibility away from the concepts that may stand just fine on their own otherwise.
Thanks for the knuckle rap. However...the instruments of detection are the real issue. Do you not think that human perception is a finer detecting instrument than any man made device? In this light, the wisdom of the mystics is indeed valid on a scientific level. They perceived spiritual truths with their third eye of intuition, (located, as we all know, within the brain, between the eyebrows.)
We all have it. But we generally do not consciously use it or train ourselves to use it. I trust those who have developed this perceptive ability.
Correction, You trust those who TELL you they have developed their perceptive ability.
And no, human perception is not at all a finer detecting instrument than any man made device. That's why hospitals use CT and other scanning devices to look inside our bodies. Doctors use these things to see whats going on because they themselves can't.
Human senses are obviously vastly inferior to mechanical ones in nearly every case. If they weren't we would not need binoculars, telescopes or microscopes. We would not have geiger counters, radio receivers or seismic earthquake detection equipment. No litmus paper, no barometers and no anemometers. The list is almost endless of mechanical devices we've created to augment our puny perceptive senses.
If you want to claim the presence of that "third eye of intuition", you're going to have to locate the particular bundle of nervous tissue and prove (not claim, but prove) it is to provide intuition; intuition that in fact comes from correlation and compilation of facts and experiences previously encountered. I guess you could claim it is just the entire frontal lobe of the brain, the part where reasoning and problem solving takes place, but that seems like a cop out and it does not seem to be what you refer to. It isn't "between the eyebrows", for one thing.
Try to disprove it. There are many psychics. Always has been. Always will be. The greatest psychic there is evidence of (in the bible) was/is Jesus.
Really, it says the bible that Jesus said the world would come to an end before his generation died?
BTW According to the information I have come across, chakras are spinning wheels of energy that store the invisible life force called prana (Indian) or ch'i.(Chinese) or ki (Japanese.) They are located on the central channel in the body,(sushumna) The seven main chakras ascend up this channel and are linked to nerve centers along the spinal cord.
The first chakra is represented by red.
the second, orange.
the third, yellow
the fourth, green
the fifth, blue,
the sixth, indigo.
People who have a lot of energy in the first chakra are those who like to fight and are prone to anger. It is connected to aggression, and sex.
The second chakra is associated with social activities/ interests. These people often like to talk, gossip and if they are not careful can easily fritter away their time with others. The third chakra is associated with people who like to study, read and gather information, but usually on a superficial level. The fourth chakra is represented by those who like to give service to humanity. They are teachers and nurses, etc. The fifth chakra energy is associated with increased devotion to God. People with a lot of energy in the fifth chakra serve in the clergy and in monasteries. These people often radiate a bluish aura. (...undetectable to the human eye, but detectable to the trained third eye.)
(Logical scientific type people cannot stomach this kind of mystic knowledge. Sorry about that.)
How does this information relate to free will? Free will determines which chakras are activated within each individual.)
Actually that's not true. Scholars estimate the books of Moses as being written between 950 and about 450 BC. Of course those are estimates based on hypothetical source texts as they are known to have come from older previously existing sources, but those older sources don't exist today as far as we know. The stories found in Genesis, like the flood story and such, date back to the oldest written stories, like the Epic of Gilgamesh, around 2700 BC.
The Ubaid Period (5500-4000BC) is where it began. It's in this period in southern Mesopotamia that we see the first signs of "increasingly polarised social stratification and decreasing egalitarianism" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ubaid_period#Society
Up until this point it's much as you said. And even in indigenous cultures sex acts are openly discussed and practiced. But starting first in that region and era came a huge wave of what's sometimes called "patrist" cultures, that supplanted the "matrist" cultures and spread like wildfire. And it's with these patrist cultures that you see a very different attitude towards sex that carries on through to this day in nearly every modern society to varying degrees. especially in the middle east. In fact, it's only been in recent decades/centuries that it's begun to relax. Sex has a long, LONG history of being treated as an "evil, forbidden" subject.
For more on this you can check out James DeMeo's 'Saharasia' or Steve Taylor's 'The Fall'.
If you want to interpret the Bible allegorically like this, I don't think I'd necessarily disagree. You can get creative and pull out some moral lessons this way, without adhering to a literal interpretation.
There is no way to understand the bible without understanding Eastern religion. We must become enlightened as far as the science behind God and His/Her creation. (I have recently learned that Father God is Causal, and Mother God is Nature.) Evolution was of course directed by Mother/Father God.
(Makes sense to me)
In getting back to topic, here are questions for you:
Was Jesus perfect?
Was his will perfect?
Was/Is his will free?
Is he perfect in Heaven?
What is "freedom" and what is "perfection?"
What do you want, Sooner, freedom of will? If Father God was visible, we would not have free will.
How much more free do you want it?
I believe we are free to guide our own will.
You said God is perfect and this is a given.
But I suspect you don't believe God is perfect.
We are the ones who are not perfect.
Proof? Compare us to Jesus.
I believe it was referred to as the tree of knowledge and not the tree of sex. Eve took the first bite and had knowledge and wanted Adam to have the same knowledge so she told him to have a bite. So many of the religious here still don't want to have knowledge and claim all science is wrong. Some even claim to be under Gods will and not of their own free will. It's simply a story us becoming self aware. Free will is a necessary illusion.
oh. E v e r y t h i n g is a necessary illusion... don't you think... put another way: a real illusion. HA HA HA!
-except perfect God who gave us our free wills to guide.
We can guide our free wills according to Illusion or Reality. Jesus shows us the way to Reality.
These are Words To The Wise.
(They are also words for those with the eyes to read and agree
and not for those who do not agree.)
An interesting thought. If the tree in my backyard is an illusion is it necessary? Perhaps free will is a necessary delusion instead of illusion? Are all delusions necessary? No. Is it necessary that humans think we are free? Yes.
I agree: Yes, the tree in your back yard is an illusion. It is not, however, a delusion. Illusions in general are necessary. But not delusions. Free will, however, is another story entirely. Especially if you consider the fact that perhaps each one of us at one time was one with Spirit/God, but broke away and became an Individual Spiritual Entity. In which case, the free will we have is absolutely REAL!
Now who can argue that?
Do you have any evidence that suggest we were once in spirit with God and then broke away. If not it's just made up stuff.
Do you have the evidence it did not happen? I actually had an intuitive visualization! Can I prove to you it was just my imagination? No.
Oh well. Take it or leave it. It is entirely up to you.
There is a science inclusive of God. That science states that science in its general form is a map, and in its broader, more modern form is inclusive of everything. Everything being God. While some claim they found the God particle, the progenitor of life, it cannot account for the spirit...for consciousness.
That is, it can account for the 3 D world, but the 4D world, the world of consciousness remains illusive, unless you can name one person who's reproduced the soul.
The mind (or as you call it the soul) is a function of the brain. Consciousness is also a product of the brain and can be turned off by a few means one of which is a blow to the head. Humans are not the only self aware animals and we will eventually have self aware software.
We are free, Rad Man, we just need to realize it and grab our freedom. We do have freewill, if we didn't we'd be robots. And you wouldn't be hear typing in this forum post You would be programmed to do another person's will...like a computer. Unless we type on it, the computer no life. It leaves according to the typist. It does what the typist tells it to do.
the computer has no life, it lives according to the typist.
Yes, indeed. I drive therefore the car is driven, I mow the lawn therefore the lawnmower mows. etc.
Yes and I, as a stream of consciousness within a body, am driving that body. It is brilliant, really!
Did I do that?
Just In: The spirit world is beyond the world of physical science!
So, uh oh...
Q. How can ANYONE prove the existence of the spiritual Realm?
Or d i s p r o v e it for that matter!!!!!
I believe in Jesus, based on my faith that the words in the bible are true.
No one at all can disprove what Jesus said or did.
How does this relate to free will?
I am not sure.
Here is my concrete dilemma regarding freedom of will. I have three dogs. I do not want any dogs at all. My daughter brought all dogs home while growing up...and I did not say no when I should have. I loved her and I loved each dog she acquired. However, for various reasons, I now do not want any dogs at all. But I am stuck with them out of obligation and love. I do not have the freedom to act on my true will at all. I might be able to compromise, but I truly want a dog free house now that she is out of the nest. (No, she can't bring them to her apartment.)
Maybe God's perfect plan is just playing it by ear. That's what I do day after day. I realized that I would be happy with my dogs if I truly loved them. Perhaps Love is the ultimate *Here Now* goal, ambition of God. And so He plays it by ear.
( -and we can
"Be Here Now..." (B. R. Dass)
But, did God put us into a human body to just Be Here Now?
When you sit around just Being Here Now suddenly you become so happy to have a human body in a world of time and concrete reality. Yes, we're limited, but no we are not pre-programmed. We do have wills to guide according to certain things: personal ambition, golden rule, ten commandments. We are not pre-conditioned or programmed. There is a constant Now hidden in time... a constant Freedom hidden in restriction.
It doesn't matter if you are a believer or nonbeliever ... We should always take our thoughts one step further. Never believe we have obtained full awareness of the things we think we know.
In Matthew 23 Jesus was telling the Pharisee of the evils of which they have done AND of things they would do such as beating and killing HIS messengers. It was this which Peter James John and Andrew was asking when they ask, When will all these things be?
Jesus told them in a PRIVATE conversation, They will kill some of you and beat others, You will see such and such happen and then you will see this and that. Jesus then said “All of THESE” things will take place before “This” generation comes to pass.
How ever; Church has been interpreting SOooo much more into this chapter than what it actually says.
The world coming to an end was not ever mentioned by Jesus.
God is perfect; therefore, all the consequences of His actions are perfect. A human being's will is the result of God's actions. However, God created a human being's will to be independent of His own. Because of that, a human being could choose to go against God's will, thereby producing imperfect consequences. That is the problem; human beings do have free will, and chose to separate themselves from God's perfect will. The solution is that we decide to follow God's will, and then someday we will live in a perfect world created by God.
Human beings claiming to act on God's behalf should be sure that their motives and actions are aligned with his as well. Frankly, anyone can use the "I'm doing God's work" excuse to get away with whatever they are doing.
That's in response to Farasucan's post about the consequences of God's actions.
Not saying that he does used it to his advantage. Just that there are so many people out there that preach and so many of them do use it to their advantage. But I agree, separate yourself from God's will then the road will be messy. His will is a map.
The question is, what is God's will? I am sure It is based on Love. Within certain perimeters we have freedom. We have to know what those perimeters are. The Ten Commandments and The Golden Rule serve us well as perimeters/guidelines/boundaries toward our own good. We have Freedom of Will within boundaries. In this light we are allowed to work for our own good according to our own selves.
I would say.
1. educating, 2. volunteering at hospitals, 3. visiting prisoners in prison etc. The list goes on and on of what a person can do.
by Kathryn L Hill3 years ago
Free Will basically consists of doing as one pleases.Question:1. What restrictions do we willingly place on our own free wills? 2. Why are we willing to make these choices?3. What restrictions do we unwillingly, or...
by janesix5 years ago
by kirstenblog11 months ago
Darwin acknowledged from the start that the eye would be a difficult case for his new theory to explain. Difficult, but not impossible. Scientists have come up with scenarios through which the first eye-like structure,...
by Cagsil6 years ago
Okay, it's time to reveal yourself for what you have become. This post is in no way an attack on you or your person, but is an explanation for your actions, which have to be revealed for what you apparently are willing...
by mishpat3 years ago
Seems we Christians get sucked into discussion where we are called to task to support a God that "does not exist"; "supports" murder of innocents; is "intolerant" of alternate life...
by Sooner284 years ago
I plan to write a hub about this, because more and more, I see this defense as ridiculously weak, especially for the conservatives who believe in an afterlife.I'm only going to contest one point here: That people are...
Copyright © 2017 HubPages Inc. and respective owners.
Other product and company names shown may be trademarks of their respective owners.
HubPages® is a registered Service Mark of HubPages, Inc.
HubPages and Hubbers (authors) may earn revenue on this page based on affiliate relationships and advertisements with partners including Amazon, Google, and others.