Free Will and Religion - Page 29

On March 07 2012 12:52 somatic wrote:


"As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water. "
???
"(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

On March 05 2012 21:37 paralleluniverse wrote:

Not even the intrinsic randomness of Quantum Mechanics saves the free will hypothesis, as this would imply that your thoughts and actions are caused by fundamentally unpredictable random processes. If so, then they are the result of a universal RNG, thus they would still not be free.

On March 07 2012 14:23 TOloseGT wrote:


That line indicates that the water level rose and rain fell. That's it, there is no greater understanding of deep underwater springs behind that passage.

I chose the fantastic elements of the book because it's part of the book. You can't pick and choose, you have to take the whole book under consideration when you're studying it. The book reads like a fairy tale, with the mundane mixed in with the supernatural.

On March 07 2012 12:52 somatic wrote:
As with most people (most religious people included) your misunderstanding of the the bible's message is causing your hatred towards it/reproach upon it. I have recently been studying with a group of bible student's (which exact denomination i will try to keep unmentioned because i fear my own lack of understanding on the matter may cause reproach upon their organisation) and will try enlighten you on the situation. Not so much on the free will part of the discussion, i have not read any of the comments yet but will assume my view has been mentioned already. Something along the lines of - if a thought pops into my head it is my choice whether i act on it or not. That choice is me exercising free will.

"If God is good, then why did he let the genocide in Rwanda happen?"

As you mentioned it is tied in to the Adam and Eve scenario. What essentially happened there was Adam and Eve choosing not to follow God's law's and hence live by their own rules. The consequence is that God is now allowing humans and Satan to have their chance to prove they can rule themselves it is not until when all is lost that He will step in and save the righteous. So i guess technically you are right he is ALLOWING it to happen but it is Satan's influence and humans that are CAUSING it to happen. He gives all the opportunity to learn about Him and try to correct their ways and as reward eternal life. Unlike many religious organisations that will say it was God's will that those things happen the truth is that he is merely allowing it to happen so His purpose for further down the track can be fulfilled.If i were a better student/more experienced teacher I could site scriptures pertaining to these facts, i guess i can try dig them up for anyone if they are truly interested.

"Why does he not intervene in the the mass-murder being conducted by the Syrian government, as we speak? "

If he were to intervene any time something bad happened he would be prolonging the existence of Satan's reign over the Earth, by waiting he is settling the issue at the fastest pace possible once and for all, while giving every body the chance to redeem themselves by giving His word, the bible.

Most of the gaping flaws you mention are a product of the teachings of the popular churches whose teachings have been combined with pagan beliefs (beginning during the reign of the Roman emperor Constantine.) and NOT from what the bible actually teaches. From what I have seen over my three or so years studying the bible, the logic is flawless. Much more so than any other human construct I have witnessed in my 27yrs on the Earth (examples such as national/international policies, movies, video game balance etc). I can guarantee many of your conceptions of what the bible actually teaches will be incorrect, as mine were before I began to study. Some examples are the existence of a "Hell", the holy trinity, immortality of the soul and God ruling the world at the moment rather than Satan as i already mentioned.

If it adds anything to my credibility, not that it should in my own opinion, i have a degree in Engineering. Hopefully this will mitigate any derogatory comments about me being uneducated and having blind faith. On that note i do NOT have 100% faith in the bible, i have not decided to be baptised yet and am far from knowing enough to convince my self that it is correct. All i can say is that it deserves alot more credit than what is commonly given to it.

I don't think God is concerned with the consequence of His actions. He knows that in the long run, those who believe in His word and act appropriately will be saved and thus His name will remain righteous and all righteous people will be saved.

If he were to have intervened at the garden of Eden then he would have shown himself untrustworthy as he is taking away their ability to use free will and hence going against His word. So there is a need to allow things to happen.

As humans we are not capable of knowing what it is like to be omnipotent and omniscient. This is how i think of it: Maybe God has the ability to peer into things and know the outcome but he may not choose to do so at all times. I would be interested to hear what implications that has for you. As for me I'm not quite sure :S but it does seem to make these sets of events make sense.

Also someone mentioned a scripture that "God MADE Pharaohs heart obstinate" and thus violating an individuals free will. The translation i have says "Jehovah LET Pharoahs heart become obstinate". Thus not violating his free will.

Jehovah's patience in this scenario is truly a thing of beauty and although it may seem difficult now, if we believe His word is true then we believe He has perfect justice then we can believe the reward will be well worth the effort now.


Thanks for proving my point. The only reason religionists, such as yourself, can "rationalize" the existence of evil in the world is to appeal to free will and the myth about the Garden of Eden.

Your argument that it is better for God to fix everything up further down the track is completely unfounded. Additionally, your argument that if God intervened in the Syrian massacre, then it would prolong the reign of Satan on earth, is simply nonsense and crazy.

You claim that the Bible is perfect, that's because it isn't difficult to make stuff up, as you've done here, and claim it to be perfect, because you've invented it to fit your worldview. The opposite would be to use rationality, science, empirical evidence, and logical deductions to arrive at knowledge about the universe. But of course, making stuff up is easier.

The gaping flaw in this particular argument about the existence of evil, as I've pointed out in the OP is that free will does not exist.

It is completely unfounded. If you have some scientific evidence for these claims in the bible, then please share it. I don't need to explain why the bible is correct, because the burden of proof is on you.

In starting this thread I did make an assertion about the nonexistence of free will, which I have spent many hours backing up by explaining how it contradicts our current scientific understanding of the universe. To claim that I haven't done so shows that you're either disingenuous or do not read.

You're attempting to portray the bible as deserving of creditability, by saying that one needs to study it (I went to a catholic high school), but it's a book written by humans in the time when slavery was acceptable and homosexuals were stoned to death, and that is directly reflected in the writings of the Old Testament.

To scientifically prove the bible is foolish and pointless. Not even theologians attempt it. There's a reason they call it faith. When you come up with scientific evidence for God, scientific evidence for the creation of the world in 7 Earth days, and and scientific evidence for the virgin birth, please get back to me. I would be very interested. Good luck with this endeavor.

And what about scientific evidence for free will? Or at the least a counterargument to the fact that free will is inconsistent with our current understanding of science?

You cant judge God based on what someone who claims to be His follower says.E.g. If i say im an expert at SC2 but cant tell you how to hold off a 4gate as terran, than do i really know how to play SC2? or is it just SC2 that is broken and 4 gates cannot be held off? - this is the cause of much grief when new strategies come out that seem imba, people just like to take the easy road and QQ and say its not possible but someone will come along and show them how to hold it off and all will be forgotten.

I did briefly address this issue before. In saying “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21). I do not claim myself to know or act in complete harmony with the bible, heck i masturbated about 10 times in the last two days. I'm just trying to defend it with what i do know.

Yes some bible events can be substantiated and some not. But why would you focus on what we do not know about the bible in an attempt to understand it, its not going to lead anywhere constructive to hypothesize about what happened at the parting of the red sea, just look to somewhere where you can find answers.

As for the Isaiah quote I have a source that says it can be translated as a sphere. So this argument will now deteriorate into my scholar is better than your scholar but ultimately will lead no where.

As for the prophecies i mentioned, i was interested in the ones that had already come true not ones made willy-nilly by any old "sooth sayer" and hence gave me evident demonstration of things hoped for though not yet beheld. As in by fulfilling prophecies in the past He has provided evident demonstration that the promises He made regarding the future will be beheld.

And as for a deeper description of the prophecies i mentioned well that is beyond the scope of this thread and my knowledge to be honest, i have work to do in looking at more details into those to convince myself and that is the onus that is on me and everyone else. Every one will be accountable for their own actions.

I am questioning every sentence written in the thing, takes time. But i can say that for every 1 thing i find as fact the 10 that you claim to be inconsistencies will be, in my limited experience (which is probably more experience than yours in regards to the bible? maybe not) , due to your own misinformation or lack of information. Remember a short time ago i was just like you, had the same views on the bible as everyone else, that it was just a load of shit but as i asked questions about it i got reasonable answers and my misinformation was corrected and lack of information began to become less, and hence the process began.

"As for the springs in the watery deep, nothing in the passage even hints at some knowledge of these ocean springs. This line just talks about a great deal of water being released, because duh, flood = large amounts of water. "
???
"(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened."

"If you're going to come up with your own translations and interpretations, at least talk with scholars of the Bible first. They've been at this for far longer than your 3 years."

what do you think iv been doing for the last 3 years? I have been meeting up with people who devote their lives to this stuff, who study it every single day. every single sentence gets scrutinized, i have witnessed this process. the amount of knowledge these guys have on the scriptures is incredible.

On March 07 2012 04:17 fishjie wrote:



I addressed this in a previous post, but to add to this:

no christian can possibly argue for absolute morality, because the god of the bible ordered and committed genocide multiple times. not to mention slavery, misogyny, racism, stoning people to death for breaking the sabbath, etc... every time it is brought up, theists simply argue: "gods ways are above our own, who are you to judge him"

if morality is absolute, i absolutely can judge the actions of bible god as evil. the fact that theists have to defend genocide kinda pokes holes in their statements.

On March 07 2012 15:18 Rodimus Prime wrote:
The point of that above post is to just say - do you realise how your arguments are coming across? I mean, if a Muslim or Buddhist came up to you and started arguing the way you do against people who don't believe in the Bible - by saying things like: "Your argument that Buddha should fix everything is unfounded" or "Your argument that Allah should fix everything is unfounded." At the end of the day, you're trying to convince rational people of the existence of a deity to fix things up, when in reality if a Muslim came up to you saying you should believe in the Koran, you would not be convinced at all and be wondering why in the world he thinks you should be expected to look at things the way you do. You would likewise conclude that the only reason he thinks the Koran is so damn valid is because he was raised in an Islamic country, just as you were likely raised in a Christian household.

On March 07 2012 12:18 somatic wrote:


so leviticus 11:21 reads: "Only this is what you may eat of all the winged swarming creatures that go upon all fours, those that have leaper legs above their feet with which to leap upon the earth."

I read it as saying insects have four legs that are used to crawl (or "go upon") additionally they have 2 other legs used for leaping therefore having six in total. The inconsistency is in your interpretation, not the scriptures itself. When one interpretation does not add up we should consider another explanation that does in order for the entire body to be coherent and hence after many hours of contemplating on the scriptures there should be only one correct way to interpret the scriptures so that it all adds up within itself.

All fowls that creep, going upon all four, shall be an abomination unto you.
Yet these may ye eat of every flying creeping thing that goeth upon all four, which have legs above their feet, to leap withal upon the earth;
Even these of them ye may eat; the locust after his kind, and the bald locust after his kind, and the beetle after his kind, and the grasshopper after his kind.
But all other flying creeping things, which have four feet, shall be an abomination unto you.

A final external evidence that the Bible is truly God’s Word is the indestructibility of the Bible. Because of its importance and its claim to be the very Word of God, the Bible has suffered more vicious attacks and attempts to destroy it than any other book in history. From early Roman Emperors like Diocletian, through communist dictators and on to modern-day atheists and agnostics, the Bible has withstood and outlasted all of its attackers and is still today the most widely published book in the world.

If you have to understand every single question that pops up in your mind to believe in Christianity, then....well......its very very difficult. Remember, we are only humans.

On March 07 2012 20:07 Deadeight wrote:



What about the rest of it?

From my (beautiful, almost 2 century old wood bound ) King James Version:



Your translation reads differently to mine, so I'm not sure what's accurate (edit: I am now, mine is. At least from google). The above quite clearly talks of insects with only 4 legs. e.g. all other insects with four legs.

I think that's a pretty big scientific error.



EDIT: I did a little research: http://www.biblestudytools.com/leviticus/11-23-compare.html

There are a few versions which significantly change what the passage says, for example the GOD'S WORD translation changes "that has four legs" to "that walks across the ground like a four-legged animal". Take a good look at which version you have.

On March 07 2012 09:20 somatic wrote:


Your assertion that because particles follow the governed laws of physics we have no free will seems to be a huge leap from one spot to another. We know so little about how the brain functions that to say we have no free will because of the laws of physics seems to be conjecture and theory, i will admit, again, that i have not been following the entire thread in regards to this aspect so closely.

The ways of the old testament may seem brutal to us today but they serve us in allowing us to know what Gods standards are today and allowed Him to set up a system in which we could all be redeemed (Jews with animal sacrificed paved the way for Jesus' sacrifice to remove sins).

Again, saying that trying to prove the bible scientifically is pointless does not offer anything as to why you believe this other than because of the reasoning that some other theologians believe it then so do i.

"Faith is the assured expectation of things hoped for, the evident demonstration of realities though not beheld." (heb11:1) .
Note: Evident demonstration. Not blind devotion.

The things of the bible that stand out for me are
1. A LOT of prophecies
2. the fact the book was written spanning in events over 4000 years and is totally accurate with itself. What other man made organisation can claim this? - the Catholic church can't even keep their stance on simple bible based issues longer than a decade. Yeh theologians. - “Not everyone saying to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ will enter into the kingdom of the heavens" (mat7:21).
Ever played Chinese whispers? now try doing that over 4000 years and see if it all adds up.

Some other things off the top of my head
3. “There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers.” (Isaiah 40:22). The Hebrew word chugh, translated “circle,” can also mean “sphere,”. - written during a time when the scientific consensus was that the earth was flat.

(Genesis 7:11) In the six hundredth year of Noah’s life, in the second month, on the seventeenth day of the month, on this day all the springs of the vast watery deep were broken open and the floodgates of the heavens were opened.
Knowledge of ocean springs at this time was clearly not something any man would know nor would the flooding of the earth necessitate the inclusion of such a detail.

Also a bunch of archaeological evidence supporting the stories written in the bible.

When the bible talks of the creation of the earth in seven days, one cannot logically assume that it means seven actual Earth days. We all know what a day is - the time it takes Earth to spin on its axis. So how can a day occur when the the sun and the moon have not yet been created? It is on the fourth day apparently that these are created. So the logical conclusion to draw here is that when Moses talks of 'days' he is simply referring to seven periods of time of equal length. Remember that God is inspiring Moses to write these events down - Moses has to do his best to try and explain such supernatural events in human terms.

And as for scientific evidence of the virgin birth...desiring scientific evidence of a miracle is a pretty rediculous request. But heck even humans can artificially inseminate women without them requiring to have sex these days.

and that is a brief overview of how I view the bible's scientific authenticity.

On March 07 2012 20:22 DontLoseSightOfIt wrote:
Must I tell you again that Christianity is not a religion?

The most important thing to remember is that it is impossible for us humans to understand the relationship betwen free will and God's sovereignty. There are many many many questions that we dont know the answer to in this life. What is required of us is not to understand those questions, but to believe in Him.

If you have to understand every single question that pops up in your mind to believe in Christianity, then....well......its very very difficult. Remember, we are only humans.

And for those saying the Bible is inconsistent, its because those people took just parts of the Bible without looking at the whole sentence, or even at the context. Not only that, but the reader has to remember that the Bible was written long long ago, and so there will be lots of metaphors, etc. that apply to the Jewish tradition, etc.

Taken from GotQuestions

But then again, even with all this, it is totally up to you to believe in the Bible or not. Yes, you have your freedom. You may choose to believe it or not, in the end it is totally up to you.

If you are one of those people who always say "there is no proof of Jesus this Jesus that, no proof of etc, no proof no proof and no proof", then it is like what I said above,
If you have to understand every single question that pops up in your mind to believe in Christianity, then....well......its very very difficult. Remember, we are only humans.

On the other hand, if you just believe, just like what it says in the Bible, then you are saved. Simple? Of course, everyone knows it is simple, yet very very difficult to do for many people.

On March 07 2012 21:11 [F_]aths wrote:

Please dont use nazis to make your point. It now can look that I am defending Hitler when I am argue against the existence of actual free will.

A person can be evil even when there is no real free will. The moral terms of good and evil don't require free will. If you inflict unnecessary pain and misery, you are evil. You do have choices. If you had a brain tumor which somehow made you inflicting pain, you are probably not seen as evil since the tumor made you do it by bypassing reasoning. As long as you can reason, you can be good or evil.

On March 07 2012 20:34 somatic wrote:


yeh different translations are going to happen. when converting from one language to another there is a certain degree of estimation involved. it can be that two different but similar translations are both correct, there is an interpretation involved. what is important is that the message that is being portrayed remains unchanged.

in some circumstances the meaning of a word can even change over time therefore a translation that once was accurate is now not because the word that has been used has had its meaning altered over time.