/lit/ - Literature

>>9935144
I can put a big nigger cock in front of you and I know you're going to suck it but it sure as fuck isn't me making you do it

>>9935144
Muh bible

God exists outside of time. Past, present, future are the same thing to Him. "Knowing" our paths has nothing to do with free will, we are still making the decisions ourselves. He has no obligation to correct our course.

As far as I know, unless you're a deranged Southern Baptist, you don't believe the Sunday school tale of crafting every human individually. God has nothing to do with that. He began the creation process and intervenes when shit goes south.

The question really should be what do you mean by free will. Every decision we make is dictated by our environment and personal experiences up to that point. There's no real "decision" in a free will sense.

>>9935144
Not much for explaining, but the mystery of lived experience has me think that intuitive answers are correct, rather than logical boundaries.

Famanigga niggas been discussing that since forever, if it was ever gonna convince anyone it wouldn't be because you now found out about it.

>>9935155
I....think this is one of the better arguments I've heard for this idea

>>9935164
Fuck it, made me respond. Ever heard the argument for how our universe is a simulation? And it doesn't make sense to ask about when the machine outside was turned on because time and space are both part of the simulation and don't necessarily exist in the "real" world? Yeah, God can work the same way. It's just atheists stealing centuries old Christian philosophy and attributing existence to a computer instead of God.

And so "God's Time", or Kairos, is not the same as our time, Chronos.

>>9935144
We are just figments within Brahmans dream... why would we, just parts of a dream of a God, require free will? We are just here to entertain Him the way we have to!

If God gave you free will then He does not know what you are doing. That's the point.

>>9935333
are...are you agreeing?

>>9935367
He's having a conversation with you....?

>>9935144
God is outside time while humans live in a finite world
t. Anselm

what difference does it make? you can't see the strings or the source code

whether you drop a plate and it was always going to happen or it simply happened, is a moot point, given that you are experiencing time linearly

even if there's an answer it has no effect on yourself

>>9935144
>how do you reconcile free with with god?
i don't. preterite and elite.

>>9935393
Fucking this
Free will cannot be identified from the human perspective.

god isnt real but this is a really weak argument

>>9935144
Easy. God knows what we will do, but doesn't always will it. Therefore even though God knows what we will do, our actions can be a product of our will rather than his.

Your decisions aren't products of your environment (although they can be limited by it), they are products of your will.

>>9935155
fpbp

The omniscience problem you pose is solved by the argument others here have posed that God is outside of time and that his observation of our future choices do not necessarily affect our future choices.

The omnipotence problem you pose is much more complicated. Augustine basically gave the following answer over a few decades worth of works:

Man was created and endowed with free will. The Fall of Man resulted in a corruption of the soul, which is inherent in all people. People after the fall were perfectly free, but because of the fall, because of their nature, only ever chose sin. For some reason, God loved us enough to want to save us from sin. He saw that freedom was insufficient for this purpose, so he sent his son, the way, the truth, the life, the word become flesh, etc., etc., to reveal to us that we were living in sin... So then we used our freedom to kill that guy because we couldn't deal with the idea that the universe is built on Love or whatever. The only problem with our plan was that God knew that we would do that (since he's omniscient), so he had his son literally take on our sins by submitting to a ritualistic torture/murder thing. If the story ended there, then we would just be free people who are only able to sin. But it doesn't. That Son was raised from the dead so he could come back and forgive us and love us even more. Get it? He took on the burden of our sins, which we was all we would freely choose and which culminate in death, and then redeemed those sins by bringing us life, his life, our life, Life.

Augustine believed that was the sort of thing that happened all the time to people. We all start out only capable of sin, then God helps us do what we cannot do alone, removes barriers, finds ways to present the Law such that we actually love and desire it, finds ways to redeem our sins and put them to good use.

If you think the paradox is that we aren't free if God is omnipotent, then you haven't considered all the possibilities. The Christian answer (and the real matter of faith) is that God created a universe where we really, truly, freely choose, where we used that freedom to sin, and God found a way to redeem that sin. The real paradox (or miracle or whatever you want to call it) is that God puts evil choices to good use.

>>9935144
Calvinism

>>9935474
But he created (either directly or indirectly) our will, with the knowledge of the decisions this will would make! So how could you see he didn't will whatever actions we make because he willed them into existence! I feel like I'm going insane.

>>9935393
It doesn't make a whole lot of difference to me, but christians seem to hold contradictory ideas and like I don't understand how. Especially since its one of them main things holding me back from becoming a Christian.

>>9935164
I have no idea what time has to do with? God still created us (wether directly like southern baptists or indirectly like creating the universe the way he did so at some part we would come into existence the way we are.) with the knowledge of what we would do. And it is impossible to deviate from that wether we wanted to or not. We don't have control over anything, god is responsible for all of it, he willed us into existence the way we are with the knowledge of what we would do.

I guess if by "freewill" you literally mean we will the choices that we make in life, I guess that can be kind of true (but there's still the problem of god being the root of all causes and creating the way we are) but it still means that we don't actually make any choices, because they are still predetermined by god.

>>9935586
This. God has foreordained everything that will come to pass. There is no "free will" in the sense that OP means. We do, however, have a will that freely acts in accord with our nature; i.e. we aren't being coerced by God to perform the actions which have been foreordained for us.

Read some fucking theology you fucking idiot.
Compatibalism.
>>9935597
>contradiction is bad becuz muh dualist memes sed so

>>9935639
>read some fucking theology

Oh if only you knew... Raised in a catholic family and went to a rigorous catholic school, read Lewis, St. Thomas Aquinas, St. Francis De Sales, St. Augustine etc. fucking etc. But despite all of fucking that I still haven't found a good answer to my question, i've discussed it with so many teachers and professors but none of them have given a satisfying answer.

Compatibalism is just mincing over semantics and definitions.

Try writing an actually helpful post next time, or kindly fuck off.

>>9935671
>raised in a catholic family
No you weren't. Stop shitposting. You clearly have no background in theology.
You retards always have the same nonsense story. What's next, a kid raised by Fields Medal recipients that doesn't know the principles of algebra by age 20?

>>9935576
not this guy, but OP, respond to this

>>9935687

Not defending him, but at least 80% of "Catholic" families are extremely under- or mis-informed about their faith. If anything, being raised in a religious family often means being vaguely religious and going to church without ever having looked seriously at one's own faith because one goes to church, feels as though one has fulfilled one's religious duty for the week, and calls it a day. It was not until my faith was seriously shaken that I ever took to reading the Bible directly (rather than hearing snippets at church) and taking a serious look at Christian philosophy. The average genuinely-believing religious person is often less informed about their faith simply because they merely believe, without seriously investigating what they believe and especially why they believe.

>>9935744
Yes, that's my point. He's claiming that his parents and teachers were some sort of experts, when they are anything but.
Any excerpts from theology would not be the challenging excerpts, more the foundational/ontological ones, and would not be seriously studied.
'investigation' is navel-gazing nonsense. One does not know God by rationalizing God.

>>9935144
How do you reconcile free will without a god? It clearly can't exist within a purely physical universe, since we know only cause, effect and quantum chance. So to assert free will is to assert metaphysics.

Other than that, I just like the Christian story, at least the first half.

>>9935597
>But he created (either directly or indirectly) our will, with the knowledge of the decisions this will would make! So how could you see he didn't will whatever actions we make because he willed them into existence! I feel like I'm going insane
I'm Orthodox, we are taught to hold things like that as mystical, not as topics figured out by cognitive probing. God in essence is completely and permanently unknowable and ineffable, so it is unproductive to speculate on his mechanics. All I know is that he can see our choices but did not "program" us to make them

im not christian but its the same god

it doesnt make a difference if your decision is known or not. the future is still a result of your actions. meaning that the future that is to come about is a result of your action.
knowledge does not mean predetermination

>>9935863
>im not christian but its the same god
Christ?

>>9935875
no
a man cant be God, thats bluepilled as fuck senpai

>>9935934
I think he means it's not the same good as in Christianity unless that God is Christ

>>9935687
>>9935744
I expect better from lit.

Out of all things in my post clinging to the fact that I came from a catholic family is what you choose to bitch about.

Plus are you just going to disregard the fact that I went to a catholic school? And read the theology that you said I should just read? Are you this defesnive when it comes to your beliefs that when someone who genuinely wants to believe what you believe, but simply can't because one or two intellectual disagreements that you insult them and disregard their opinion?

I thought this board was better than that.

>>9935576
Again I still don't see what time has do with the omniscience problem. So he isn't limited by our conceptions of how time works. How does that change anything I said? He stills knows with 100% all of the decisions we make, and there is nothing we can do to change it. So we don't have the option of making a choice.

I'm also not sure on the omnipotence thing, I understand that god gave man "freedom" but didn't he create all of the conditions of that freedom? I can't help but make the analogy to that of a scientist putting a rat in the maze, the rat does technically have "freedom" to do what he wants, but that freedom is incredibly limited and if he doesn't do specifically what the scientists want he will be punished.

Even if god does truly love us, and using our sin to try and help reach eternal happiness how can you reconcile that with the fact that he is directly responsible for the world we live in and the intricacies of our personality? He designed to act in some way or another, of which we don't have control over.

And none of this even hints on the problem of pain (which I still do not believe can be explained away by apologetics) but that is conversation for another day.

>>9935806
So it basically boils down to "don't think about it, just believe what I'm telling you?" sorry but I can't accept that.

If you don't define your terms then any discussion following your question will be useless.

>>9935934
Why can't God unite a human nature to himself?

>>9936023
On the omniscience thing, just think of any supposedly free choice you know you or someone else made in the past. If you know about it after the fact, that in no way means that you affected that choice. When people say that God is outside of time so his foreknowledge is not in conflict with free will, they mean that it is possible that he could observe your free choices (that look to you as if they are in the present or future) as if they are in the past. Does that help?

For the "rat in the maze" idea, I'd say you're not so far off. Except it's not a maze, it's literally your whole life, everything you could possibly know, do, think, experience. So I would have to ask you, what would you prefer instead? A maze without walls? If the rat leaves the lab and goes outside, he's about as free as you are. If God doesn't give us any "walls" then what is there?

There are truths and laws that, yes, constrain your freedom in a sense. But again, what's the alternative?

>>9936023
Whiny faggot.

You haven't read any theology, you do not understand Christianity. You're fucking stupid, dopeass.

>>9935144

Read Abolishing Freedom, ya bitch

>>9936136
What is Ruda's argument?

>>9936154
read the book, nigger.
It's short.

>>9936165
Just me a brief idea. No library in my entire country has it.

>>9936199
https://www.amazon.com/Abolishing-Freedom-Contemporary-Fatalism-Provocations/dp/0803284373/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1503638254&sr=8-1&keywords=Frank+Ruda

Come on man, used for $9 USD
cheap

>>9936199
Sample from the introduction and shit here as well in pdf for free.
https://www.jstor.org/stable/j.ctt1d4v0t3

>>9936281
>tfw you live in Australia and cannot enjoy Amazon bargains
>>9936284
ty lad, looks really interesting

>>9936290
holy shit i could never live in australia fuck that

>>9936293
Being a reader here is awful. Books cost between $25-35 here, and ordering online is pretty limited, since most sites have ridiculous postage charges for us. Book Depository is our saving grace

>>9935586
>religion for atheists

>>9936297
I need to hunt the usual websites for a pdf, if there isn't one I ought to scan the damn thing, it's only lke 170 pages.

>>9935144

>not realizing the omnipresence of a malevolent force (Satan, 5th dimensional alien: call him what you will) that offers temptation to people to entice them to stray from the path set for them.

There's always a choice. The question is: are you a big enough gaylord to fall for the wrong choice.

>>9936023
Hey OP. The reason you're not getting a satisfactory answer is this: there is none.

If the replies you do get seem nebulous or contradictory, it's par for the course.

Here's the secret: There is no answer to your initial argument. The type of questions you're asking will always push logical Christians to a sort of 'Dei sacrificium intellectus'.

You're right: If God is omniscient, he created the world knowing full well that His creating it in just this fashion would result in just this specific unfolding of all existence. Ergo, you have no free will. God's omniscience is completely incompatible with free will. You were also right to doubt Anselm's 'outside of time' argument: it simply does not work as a rebuke.

Either you believe God and his work is beyond logic (in which case qualifying him things such as 'good' or 'loving' or 'one' becomes difficult), or you hold contradictory beliefs and try to ignore the cognitive dissonance. If you're dumb, the second option is relatively easy.

>>9936364
There is an answer, though. Sorry that you don't understand theology!
>contradiction is bad becuz muh reddit dualism sez so

>>9936368
Dear cretin,

If there is an answer, I am all ears.

>>9936398
Read more theology. Stop falling for memes while claiming you're 'LE FREE THINKER XDDD'
You're the cretin.

>>9936418
"Read more theology" is not an actual answer. I presume you've read enough theology to find a solid counterargument? Is it too much to ask for you to produce it here?

I understand that you are not exceptionally intelligent, and so asking you to write out a complex argument may be cruel, but surely you are capable enough to remember just one rebuttal gleaned from all that theology you've been reading, google it, and copy paste it here?

I kid. I know you won't engage in the debate, you're an idiot. (feel free to surprise me)

>>9936460
It actually is.
>more projecting
Good job, pseud.

>>9936460
>feel free to surprise me
Read the rich man and Lazarus.

>>9935144
Its still freewill my dude.
He knows every possibility. Dont confuse it with there being only one.

>>9935144
ITT: People who don't understand what free will is

Daily reminder there's no free will in heaven.

>>9935155
But you're not OP's creator who formed him particular to him. So you're fucking wrong, in the sense of god he is responsible for your actions as he is responsible for you.

>>9935144
This is a contradiction in the Bible and anyone who tries to argue otherwise is deluded. But what of it? There's many such instances. The problem of evil for example.

>>9936519
Not necessarily true. In the garden of Eden man had free will. Man lacked moral knowledge to use that freedom. Next step is akin to the garden but with us growing only the good fruit of the knowledge of good and evil; we have effectively rooted out the evil seed (jews).

>>9936531
If you stop at contradiction, you miss the next step.

>>9936531
Contradiction does not exist, you are the deluded one. 'muh problem of evil' is only a problem for brainlets

>>9936531
As the opposite of a unified God, Creation must of necessity be riddled with contradiction.

>>9936023
>So it basically boils down to "don't think about it, just believe what I'm telling you?" sorry but I can't accept that.
You can think about it at all you want, but you won't get any more elaborate understanding than the one I gave you.

Whether or not you believe is up to you, but I'm not going to pretend Christianity is just another philosophy you dialectically engage with.

>>9936535
Deluded.

>>9936539
Deluded.

>>9936540
Deluded.

>>9936559
If you get a syntax error, you are using the wrong language/syntax.

>>9936559
>asks Christians to explain
>several reasonably good answers are offered
>answers don't match my materialist criteria
>"Deluded."

>>9936564
I think you're conflating the idea of an explanation with that of a rationalization. Contradictions can be rationalized, but they cannot be explained as anything but contradictory.

>>9936561
It's not an error of syntax, it's simply an error of logic. The syntax part is where people pretend otherwise with sophist bullshit.

>>9936559
There is a contradiction between a and b, but c is still going to come. Contradiction is conflict, not a lack of existence.

>>9936559
No child, you are the deluded one.

>>9936570
Logic is syntax. It relies on many laws taken from the physical realm. Change those laws and you change logic.

>>9936570
Logic is invalid.

>>9936571
>There is a contradiction between a and b, but c is still going to come. Contradiction is conflict, not a lack of existence.
C will not be as described by description of the relationship between A and B, however. That is the point.
>>9936575
>Logic is syntax.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Try telling this to a mathematician or a programmer, they will laugh in your face.

OP thinks his parents should go to hell in his place for him being a faggot

>>9936571
>Contradiction is conflict, not a lack of existence
The underlying tension in Christianity is between truth and lie, being and non-being. Tension other than this is paradox, not conflict.

>>9936617
Indeed, but the paradoxes will be resolved in this manner. Hegel understood this. Marx understood it as well, but as a member of the evil tribe, removed all notions of good from his thesis. He did prolong the existence of evil.
However, the seed of evil will be rooted out of the tree. The good fruit will prevail, and knowledge of good shall remain, whilst knowledge of evil shall rot and be forgotten.

>>9936665
Hegelian dialectic is firmly incompatible with Christianity (and Hegel understood the Gospel figurtively). This is why Kierkegaard hated him: for Hegel, truth is reached through a series of compromises; for Kierkegaard, truth is either/or, and compromise corrupts Christianity and authenticity

>>9936693
Christian paradox also is not good vs. evil, that is either/or. Christian paradox is what Kierkegaard called the absurd,

>>9936693
Christianity and Logos are not compromised. If your hand tempts you, cut it out; if your eye tempts you, cut it out. For it is better to be in the kingdom of God without a hand or an eye.
However, flesh is compromised.

>>9936588
>You clearly don't know what you're talking about. Try telling this to a mathematician or a programmer, they will laugh in your face.
I am a programmer. Logic is a syntax we put into the world and derive from it. There are principles in logic that are newfound, a law that goes against intuition or previous views.

>>9936769

Cutting off your hand isn't Hegelian dialectic, it's either/or.

>>9936807
Hegel doesn't compromise anything holy, whereas Marx ignores or rather, denies the holy altogether.

>>9936819
Hegel doesn't believe in a literal Resurrection. He read the Gospel as basically a Neo-Platonist allegory, and identifies the Logos with the world soul

>>9935144
>If god truly is omniscient, then he knows with 100% certainty every single "decision" that we are ever going to make, how can you say we actually have freewill?

I see the world as presently 'unfolding', rather than the future already being laid out as a sort of object that god can access

god himself is here with us, presently as the worlds unfolds. the future is unknowable even to god, it doesn't exist

>>9935333
>our universe is a simulation
And I guess whoever runs the simulation is in a simulation too, right? To infinity, and beyond!

>>9936832
>the future is unknowable even to god,
Liberal theology was a mistake

God doesn't exist in timespace, the idea that he is exists within something he created is wrong. Apart from the incarnation

>>9936844
>he sees time as sort of elongated rectangle of events that god has access to, with the present moving along the rectangle from left to right

god is just as thrust upon an absurd world as we are

>>9936844

God + "creation" form a unified set.

>>9935144

Humans were created for the purpose of free will being angels did not have it. I am not Christian and I know this.

>>9936878
No, God willed it into being

>>9936891
Incorrect, God is fundamentally uncreated, creation is fundamentally created; there is no shared nature or properties between the two except in the incarnation.

>>9936926
>>9936926
the doctrine that angels don't have freewill is Islamic, not Christian. Christianity not only affirms the freewill of angels, it says one third turned against God

>>9936947

The set isn't dependent on properties, it's dependent on existence. If you believe that God and creation both exist then they can be grouped together into a single existential set.

Why are you approaching the premise of free will from a logical perspective, god is beyond the realm of our mere reasoning, stop trying to rationalize something outside of reason itself.
Just take that leap you faggot

>>9937006
>mfw I took the leap

>>9935144
God knowing what decisions you will make =/= God forcing you to make those decisions. He has foresight but he does not hold you responsible for decisions that you have yet to make (he knew Lucifer would sin but still held him in the highest respect and position, he knew Adam would fall but still gave him Paradise and Eve).

Of course some Christians would disagree and say that we don't have free will at all.

I'm an atheist BTW. I really wish people like you would just read a little bit about Christianity before shitting up the board with "Explain this Christ fags!" threads that reveal you are entirely uneducated about the most influential religion in Western thought.

>>9936965
From an Orthodox perspective, strictly speaking God *doesn't* exist.

> It is Cause Indeed of all things existing, but Itself none of them, as being superessentially elevated above all. To none, indeed, who are lovers of the Truth above all Truth, is it permitted to celebrate the supremely-Divine Essentiality----that which is the super-subsistence of the super-goodness,----neither as word or power, neither as mind or life or essence, but as pre-eminently separated from every condition, movement, life, imagination, surmise, name, word, thought, conception, essence, position, stability, union, boundary, infinitude, all things whatever.

>Word unutterable, speechlessness and inconception, and namelessness----being after the manner of no existing being, and Cause of being to all, but Itself not being

God is rather the principle and predicate of existence . We only say God "exists" for the sake of simplicity

>>9937284

Then you can include God and creation in a set that includes "anything that doesn't exist or does exist."; or a "set of anythings."; or "the set that contains everything" - defining God's properties or lack thereof doesn't get around this, it's infinitely adjustable. If you claim God """is""", and creation """is""". Then it is necessary at the highest level of organisational grouping to group them together as a set.

>>9937314
The group theory found proof that it is impossible to have all possible members in a set.

>>9937314
No, because God isn't technically IS (being) either. All properties we ascribe to him are simply *names*, not properties as such.

>>9935144
>he hasnt read Problem of pain

>>9937368

This still doesn't contradict the grouping no matter how it's dressed up.

>>9937382
It really does, since grouping relies on shared properties, whereas there are no shared properties here.

>>9935144
Decisions are made in time. God is outside of time, and for him all moments in time are simultaneously present.

Just because God knows your decisions "before" you make them in time doesn't mean you don't make the decisions.

>So since you have absolutely no say in anything you do (etc.)
That's just a fallacy and nothing else.

i am not religious but damn you are an idiot if you actually think this is a good argument

>>9937513

no, see

>>9937314

You can create a group named "Sad refrigerators, objective morals, and dishwashers."

You can quite easily create a group like "God plus Turkeys" it's a group,
You are grouping God with Turkeys.

>>9937583
Sure, but that's completely whimsical and can't be used to support statements like "God is limited by time"

>>9937654

>Sure

I agree, God can be grouped with creation.

>>9936072
Shit I think I understand the omniscient thing now, thank you so much. Still Idk about the omnipotent thing, but I feel like I'm finally getting there thanks senpai.

>>9936364
This honestly how I'm starting to feel... But you know I'm still young maybe in 30-40 years I'll feel different. I don't like the idea of being an atheist, but I feel like its my only option.

>>9936368
What the hell is wrong with you? Do you actually take people disagreeing with you this poorly? And people say atheist are annoying god.

Test

>>9935144
>how can you possibly say we have free will?

God is infinite, you idiot. INFINITY IS FUCKING HUGE. It's incomprehensibly huge. Call it omniscient and omnipotent if you want, but those are just another way of saying infinite. There is no "right action" that magical skydad knew you were going to do next because you are a dimensionless speck in the bosom of God experiencing itself and have already done them all.

>>9937706
But only in theoria, not in any actual sense.

>>9937025
>God knowing what decisions you will make =/= God forcing you to make those decisions.
But god made you. And he made you the way you are. Knowing full well how it would turn out. How is he not responsible?

>>9938793
Many Christians would say that God created man with free will. If God did not give us free will our faith and loyalty would be meaningless.

>>9936588
Mathematicians and programmers are ideologues, they hate to be challenged.
Logic is syntax, the logic of a programming language is its syntax -- the language itself.
The logic of the language is then dictated by the wider metalogic. The same applies to all languages.

>>9936769
You forget the Oikos. The flesh is not compromised, the soul is and the soul leads the flesh. To claim that 'the flesh is compromised' or, 'the world is damned' is to project blame onto the Oikos, rather than the Ego.

It is not God's gifts that are at fault, it is you.

>>9938289
Nothing is wrong with me, you are the one at fault.
When you do not understand, you blame something other than you. Surely, a fellow enlightened by reason such as yourself cannot be wrong -- about anything!

>>9935144
Free Will is just a way of Him showing us where we are going.

>>9935144
Just because what we do is predetermined doesn't mean we don't get to decide what we do retard

>>9935333
I happen to believe the simulation hypothesis. I think it's oversimplifying it to call it specifically a "computer simulation" because that implies a lot of things, but I believe it is a simulation of a sort. There are many things we can observe that behave similarly to how certain things in tech work; observation rendering, quantum physics, quantum pixelation, spooky action at a distance, in addition to many unsolved but undeniable phenomena such as ghosts, miracles and UFOs. Now, before you jump on me, I'm not an atheist by any stretch. If anything, it's more likely that there is a god and the simulation is the method by which its will is carried out; but I don't believe it has much to do with the Christian god or any scripture. Given the nature of a simulation, that can all be programmed.

>>9936835
I get your point but you're not thinking about it properly. If we are in a simulation, that does not mean that whatever the simulation is in is anything like anything within the simulation. It could be completely different out there, or even just mildly different. In that sense, "simulation" is not a good word, but it is the closest thing we have in our experience to relate it to.