There is a common refrain that man is not given free agency, that we are predestined to act as we do. I think that argument is a cop-out so we can blame God for all our troubles. I don't believe God is even totally responsible for anything, let alone most things. He created us, but neither does force our actions, nor has he totally abandoned us to our own devices. But to expect he will always act to prevent our miseries is that very cop-out that he is responsible to fix our problems when we should be trying to fix them ourselves. Blaming God for our troubles is trying to absolve us for everything we do without our going through the responsible sequence of events that allow us to take responsibility and repent for our doing things that do not being us joy. It doesn't work that way.
Is the claim that we have no free agency a cop-out?
Posts
Total:
58
.
FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum, and the #1 record holder of running away from godly posts of mine, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times, and goes against Jesus in taking care of the poor, says that the Bible is a FRAUD, and calls the Christian faith as DISHONEST, and still wants to be called a Christian, and has run away from 18 posts to him in one thread alone,
FAUXLAW BLOCKS THE BROTHR D BECAUSE HE CANNOT ACCEPT SUBSTANTIATED BIBLICAL AXIOMS THAT HE CANNOT ADDRESS AS SHOWN IN THE FOLLOWING LINKS!
.
.
FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum, and the #1 record holder of running away from godly posts of mine, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times, and goes against Jesus in taking care of the poor, says that the Bible is a FRAUD, and calls the Christian faith as DISHONEST, and still wants to be called a Christian, and has run away from 18 posts to him in one thread alone,
FAUXLAW, the runaway from biblical axioms, and now the #1 Bible fool upon this forum, and the #1 record holder of running away from godly posts of mine, and who has called Jesus a LIAR many times, and goes against Jesus in taking care of the poor, says that the Bible is a FRAUD, and calls the Christian faith as DISHONEST, and still wants to be called a Christian, and has run away from 18 posts to him in one thread alone,
Like I stated, Jesus and I will continue to show your unbelievable Bible stupidity at your expense, even though you "had to block me" because you couldn't even come close to addressing the substantiated Biblical axioms that I posed to you. Your only solace within this forum is to know that you remain the #1 Bible fool and runaway from same, sorry.
.
.
Is there another Bible fool runaway like FAUXLAW has shown to be? If so, come forth and be Bible Slapped Silly®️ like FAUXLAW was in return, praise Jesus!
-->
@fauxlaw
Do you think Calvinism is a cop-out?
-->
@Castin
I find, as in most religions, including my own, "Calvinism" to have such a wide variety of claims by its adherents who call themselves such, to draw a single conclusion that agree with your question. There are those who believe predestination os absolute, with which I disagree, and I find that a cop-out because it completely absolves people of their actions, such as admitting them to heaven, regardless of thought and action.
-->
@BrotherDThomas
The misgivings of poundmethomas notwithstanding, being supposedly slapped is of entirely no consequence. All it takes is a backbone, but it should not be used as a fist. It kind of rips the head from the rest, doesn't it? Is there any true life left to the remains?
-->
@fauxlaw
There is a common refrain that man is not given free agency, that we are predestined to act as we do. I think that argument is a cop-out so we can blame God for all our troubles. I don't believe God is even totally responsible for anything, let alone most things. He created us, but neither does force our actions, nor has he totally abandoned us to our own devices. But to expect he will always act to prevent our miseries is that very cop-out that he is responsible to fix our problems when we should be trying to fix them ourselves. Blaming God for our troubles is trying to absolve us for everything we do without our going through the responsible sequence of events that allow us to take responsibility and repent for our doing things that do not being us joy. It doesn't work that way.
If it a cop out to blame god, the surely it is also evidence for god's existence by default? I am a non-theist and a determinist but I also do not deny that people are responsible for their own actions. Environment, genetics may account for why we end up doing stuff, but at the end of the day, personal responsibility is not excused by these things.
If I kill someone intentionally or recklessly, then I am still a murderer. There may be plenty of reasons why I ended up killing someone. It may be that I am hungry or angry or jealous or that I don't want to get caught. Or it may be that I am nuts or delusional. Or it might be because I am doing my job as a police officer, or soldier, or security guard. Or it may be in self defense.
Our environment and our genetics and I would add the place and race and time I was born accounts for how and what we will do in life. These things will send us down a particular path - but this path - determined by cause and effect for the most part but not necessarily fixed in concrete. However if we do change our circumstances - it is probably because of the unique path we were on in the first place. Events don't happen in vacuums. There is always a reason or a cause - hence determinism is logical.
Yet why should this excuse human personal responsibility? Throwing God into the mix just muddies the waters. I would suggest that if non-theists are attempting to use determinism as a means of blaming god - then they are not non-theists - but rather are theists wanting to come out of the closet. And are needing an excuse to do so without looking like a fool.
On the other hand - if a non-theist is a determinist - and sees that it really is the best explanation of cause and effect and don't bring god into it - then they are the ones who are doing ok. Or are at least living consistently.
-->
@Timid8967
Throwing God into the mix just muddies the waters.
Well it is the theist and the scriptures that put god in the frame, themselves? Like many other things biblical,they just never accept the fact .
Lets look at their standpoint .
It never ceases to baffle me as to why it is Christians spout the phrase " free will" whenever they find themselves on the back foot of many religious arguments concerning god himself.
Ask a Christian why it was the biblical Adam/Eve chose to defy their god and maker no less, and they simply throw at you that one single phrase - free will - but never hang around long enough to explain what "free will" actually is in any sense or when it was granted.
Ok here then, according to the believer we have free will.
Lets start with when we get to Genesis 9 and god seems happy with his handy work, and his happiness is expressed again at Genesis 12 & again at 21,25 and up until god has one more look over his creation and it says at 31 "God saw all that he had made, and it was very good."
So we have humans created in the image of a god and god was very pleased and although all was " very good" they both defy god?
And no explanation as to why this happened. We hear that this pair of humans were somehow "beguiled" by a being known as the serpent. But if we backtrack just a few verses we can re-read that these humans were created in the image of god himself, and no mention whatsoever of them being granted anything resembling free will. Did god say to them you have a choice to eat of the tree or not? Or even a mention to them to beware of any being calling himself a reptile. Was there any warning that "satan" will be along shortly to tempt and test them. Why not? And why did god have no control over the serpent ?
And lets not forget that the beguiling was done by one of gods own creations. Why create such an entity? And, if they were made in " gods image" , doesn't it follow that this pair were only doing what god himself would sometimes do? Or is it a case of - do as I say and not as I do?
I don't doubt for one second that the theist will tell us that we "were created only very good and and not perfect", and if that is the case, then they need to ask their god why only good and not perfect? Besides, there are a few characters in the scripture that are said to be "blameless" and "righteous" that "walked in the way of god", why create some "blameless and others defiant?
And then there is the point of how can the actions of the Eden couple be because they had "free will" when the command came with a penalty of death? Or do the words "you will die" mean something entirely different to "the student of ancient Greek "Genesis 2:17
The free will excuse used for gods own failings is utter nonsense.
This thread is perfect example of a theist in denial.
And doesn't the bible actually tell us that our paths are chosen for us by god? And what do these mean verses in Greek or any language?
“In him we have obtained an inheritance, having been predestined according to the purpose of him who works all things according to the counsel of his will." (Ephesians 1:11) Key word:
"The lot is cast into the lap, but it's every decision is from the Lord." (Proverbs 16:33).
-->
@Timid8967
I agree with much of what you say, even though I am a theist. I agree that we have personal responsibility, therefore, I see us being the cause of the misery in the world, and not God. I think the cause God initiated ends at creation and, from that point on, we have the responsibility of cause by our free will to do good or evil, and that, whether or not there is a God-figure. Moral action need not be tied to a God-centered morality, but just our own sense of morality or amorality as a proper, or utter lack of need of social foundation, depending on individual belief on the morality point.
Example: I'm sure you're somewhat familiar with the biblical Sermon on the Mount, which happens to be the best political platform ever achieved, in my opinion, if studied in that context rather than a religious platform, simply because it describes a proper comportment of individuals whether or not they are theists or non-theists. Take God completely out of that picture, and you still have a set of "rules" that would personally solve every social ill we face, ever have faced and ever will face simply because they form, by compliance, a peaceful society if everyone abides by the principles taught therein. What better politics than which achieves a peaceful, cooperative society?
-->
@fauxlaw
There is a common refrain that man is not given free agency, that we are predestined to act as we do. I think that argument is a cop-out so we can blame God for all our troubles. I don't believe God is even totally responsible for anything, let alone most things. He created us, but neither does force our actions, nor has he totally abandoned us to our own devices.
My issue with 'free will' vs predestination is more that if you have a plan for every molecule in the universe, then that means you only have the illusion of free will, not actual free will. For example, did Judas act of his own free will? If so, then it would seem crucifixion was a coincidence, not part of any plan. And if you don't have a plan, and are instead 'surprised' by what people choose to do, so much so that you hold them accountable for all eternity, then you're not all knowing.
But to expect he will always act to prevent our miseries is that very cop-out that he is responsible to fix our problems when we should be trying to fix them ourselves. Blaming God for our troubles is trying to absolve us for everything we do without our going through the responsible sequence of events that allow us to take responsibility and repent for our doing things that do not being us joy. It doesn't work that way.
I don't (and I don't think any non-theist) expect god to 'fix the problems' or absolve us for everything we do, but if we're responsible and god won't do anything about it, what's the point of praying? Maybe I'm not clear on what you're saying.
-->
@ludofl3x
I had a "plan" that my daughter would be a photographer, as she expressed an early interest in that field, earning her own SLR camera in early adolescence. Yes, she is passionate about photography, but as a profession, she's an EMT, for which I had no plan at all, although I noticed that from childhood, her caring and compassion for others was boundless, even calming me down when she injured herself at seven in a bike accident, and I was treating her wounds, while she was saying everything would be okay, so I am not at all surprised that she chose that path. God does, I believe, have plans for us, but does not interfere with our own plans by our agency. If the two coincide, as I believe is the case both with me, and my daughter, so much the better, but if not, we make our choices and consequences.
-->
@Stephen
.
Stephen,
In addressing your post #9, THE TOTALLY BIBLE INEPT FAUXLAW still doesn't understand what Jesus the Christ is trying to tell him, and that is that he has NO FREE WILL WHATSOEVER, as explicitly shown within Jesus' inspired words within the scriptures. Again he calls Jesus a LIAR!
I had to easily school fauxlaw upon this topic many times where as usual he ran away from it in total despair. As shown, he is nothing but an ungodly minion of Satan within this forum in disrupting Jesus' true words that show pseudo-christians like fauxlaw represents, do not have free will!
As shown herein, fauxlaw still can't compose a direct and cogent argument upon this topic! Look at his ever so wanting grade school attempts thus far in his own embarrassing thread to feebly try and prove that the pseudo-christian has free will, where they all fall flat upon their proverbial faces at fauxlaw's flustering and embarrassing expense.
It's too bad that fauxlaw doesn't have the balls to discuss this topic with me or you outright, but only to run away from us and the topic at hand, therefore, what does that tell the membership and Jesus the Christ? Yes, the #1 Bible fool fauxlaw represents the true definition of a wussy little pseudo-christian runaway!
“The plans of the heart belong to man, but the answer of the tongue is from the Lord.” (Proverbs 16:1). GET IT BIBLE DUMBFOUNDED FAUXLAW? HUH?
Check out FAUXLAW stepping in the proverbial poo AGAIN in being a hypocrite to the topic in my following link: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5994-is-the-claim-that-we-have-no-free-agency-a-cop-out?page=1&post_number=14
.
.
FAUXLAW'S CONTRADICTING HYPOCRITICAL QUOTE IN POST #12 !!!: "God does, I believe, have plans for us, but does not interfere with our own plans by our agency. "
HELLO, anyone home today, obviously NOT! OMG, you propose that pseudo-christians have free will, then you turnabout and say that Jesus has plans for us which takes your free will status completely away, and which goes directly against your notion that you do have total free will!!!! Jesus H. Christ, you might as well state that your thread is now closed down because of your hypocritical stance upon the free will notion, unbelievable.
FAUXLAW, ONCE AGAIN YOU SHOW YOUR BIBLE STUPIDITY AND HYPOCRITICAL STANCE!
.
In Heathenism the gods themselves are subject to fate. Odin is constantly on the move to change it and can't. We have limited free will. Who we are born to, where we are born, how we are raised. Our own mind via psychology keeps us from being subject to our own fears, hopes and paths and lives. We are subject to a multitude of things that keeps us from doing exactly what we want or should be.
God does, I believe, have plans for us, but does not interfere with our own plans by our agency.
So he doesn't have a plan, because if it doesn't coincide with MY plan for my life, he's surprised by what I choose?
Comparing your plan for your daughter isn't nearly the same as comparing the mythical 'plan for all atoms across space and time and knows all.' If your version of god is different than that, then I'd say you're not adhering to a traditional interpretation of the god of the bible. If my plans are more effective than his plans, then he didn't have a plan. Like you with your daughter, maybe he had a hope or a wish, but he didn't have a PLAN. They're not the same. If an omniscient being has only hopes or wishes, then he doesn't have knowledge, and is therefore not omniscient. See what I'm saying? You can have free will, or you can have all knowing god. You can't have both, they are contradictory.
ETA, on consideration, it would seem that the claim you're making, that we DO have free agency and it's powerful enough to supersede God's plan, IS in fact a cop out, for the god character in question. Want an explanation for, say, children starving to death? Well, someone's free will must have made that the only sensible outcome, as an all loving god WOULDN'T have planned for children he loves to die in anguish. Why are there wars? Well, some country' collective free will goes against god's plan, and massive violence and death abound as a result. If you take the part where god's plan didn't coincide with man's plan, you're making man's plans superior to god and absolving the all knowing author of everything no blame at all. It's nonsensical.
-->
@ludofl3x
So he doesn't have a plan, because if it doesn't coincide with MY plan for my life, he's surprised by what I choose?
I repeat, for the hard of reading:
God does, I believe, have plans for us, but does not interfere with our own plans by our agency.
In addition, to your trailing point, acknowledging that God knows and sees all, no, he is not surprised by our own plans whether they differ from his or not. What is so difficult to understand about all God's omni-powers, but not always acting with the total expression of those powers? Why would God exercise excessive power when not necessary? Isn't that a waste? Does God do that? No, he acts by whatever level of power is necessary to do the job. Do you use all your power all the time? No, you, or somebody, has admitted that you do not. Why, then, limit God from limiting himself if he so desires and needs? Who are you to impose limits on God that he cannot limit himself?
-->
@fauxlaw
I repeat, for the hard of reading:God does, I believe, have plans for us, but does not interfere with our own plans by our agency.
If his plan only works when it coincides with my plan, be definition I've got more power than him. To use your daughter analogy, your daughter might plan to have pancakes for dinner, and her plan only works if you ALSO plan to make pancakes for dinner. If your plan is to have pasta, did she really have a PLAN, or just a wish for pancakes? In that analogy, your daughter's plan for pancakes is exactly the same as god's plan for your life: it's only workable if it's also YOUR plan. Repeating it doesn't clarify how you think it works. Either it's free will or a plan, it isn't both.
If god chooses to limit his own knowledge, he is no longer omniscient. Or he's only pretending to have limited knowledge.
See " God Is Unconvincing To Smart Folks" by J. H. McKenna Ph.D.
It is Intellegent Man that has made life livable, not Stupid Man.
-->
@ludofl3x
What God plans will be accomplished, but only for those who also agree with his plan and abide by it. Our agreement is entirely on us to choose, however. That is where you continuation of the example of my daughter fails, because her choice to have pancakes ends when it is God's plan that pancakes ought to be 86'ed in favor of a green salad. otherwise, God says, pancake away to your heart's content.
Let's go back to the exercise described in Genesis 2: God's command to Adam that of every tree in the garden, Adam was allowed to partake, but that the specific tree of knowledge should not be eaten of because that had dire consequence: death. However, did God ever say that death was a permanent condition? No, he did not. What kind of condition is it? Temporary, because God's plan included a Savior, whose atonement would ultimately pay for Adam's transgression of choosing to eat of the forbidden tree. Thus, by an innocent sacrifice by Christ, Adam's sin is absolved and he is redeemed by virtue of the atonement. The same is true for Adam and Eve's posterity, by virtue of the same plan. This is why it is silly to consider that we suffer the need to bear Adam's sin; Christ paid that price for us. To think otherwise denies Christ's atonement, and worse, if Adam, and all of us, do not repent of our sins [Adam did], and accept Christ as the Redeemer, we will suffer ourselves for them. That's all God's plan, and we can choose to acknowledge and accept it, or not. Free agency.
-->
@fauxlaw
He created us.
A somewhat glib statement..........Especially coming after the preceding statement.
Nonetheless:
We are also somewhat ordered by evolution, and conditioned by the past and limited by our physiology. So whether or not, we ever have total freedom of choice is debateable.
-->
@zedvictor4
I believe the statement to which you refer is
I don't believe God is even totally responsible for anything, let alone most things.
To which I add "He created us..."
As to the cause and effect theory, please refer to the qualifier in the quote above "totally responsible..." To negate the one claim, "God created us" by meaning of "cause and effect" would, by your definition of c&e, mean God is the sole Cause-making entity, and, therefore, is the "total responsibility" forever thereafter, is, to me, an interruption of logic. Example: My daughter, referenced in my #12, above, was thought by me to become a photographer given her extreme interest in the subject, and, in fact, did function in that professional role for a while. However, she is an EMT, as noted, and excels in that profession, given her personality. That was entirely by her choice, with no suggestion on my part. It was her free choice. Just so, once "created," [born, I suppose would be the current equivalent], God's plan is imposed upon by our freedom of agency. His force on the matter is virtually non-existent. That does not negate his plan for our existence, but our existence is primarily led by our own choices. If we happen to align with his plan, so be it. If not, so be it. That he may influence, cajole, work through others, etc, notwithstanding, and I accept that influence is there, he does not suggest by coercion. Therefore, he is no longer the total cause of anything following our birth, but merely a part.
-->
@fauxlaw
I would suggest that your daughters ongoing behaviour was to a greater extent, dictated by the factors I cited above.
And as to the cause and effect theory......What caused GOD?
I would suggest that Man caused GOD....Because Man inevitably came up with the notion that GOD caused Man.
-->
@zedvictor4
What caused GOD?
The person who was his God, and so on. I have said elsewhere that this process is eternal, both forward and backward, and that there are generations of gods and man, that man can become a god and beget new generations of man, infinitely into the past, and infinitely into the future, all of us, in all generations, learning line upon line, precept on precept, with the sure knowledge that there is no end to what can be learned, and acted upon by that learning. Is there a progression above God? Why not? All else is infinite; why not progress?
-->
@BrotherDThomas
Check out FAUXLAW stepping in the proverbial poo AGAIN in being a hypocrite to the topic in my following link: https://www.debateart.com/forum/topics/5994-is-the-claim-that-we-have-no-free-agency-a-cop-out?page=1&post_number=14FAUXLAW'S CONTRADICTING HYPOCRITICAL QUOTE IN POST #12 !!!: "God does, I believe, have plans for us, but does not interfere with our own plans by our agency. "
" god has a plan for us V god does not interfere in our plans". Just breathtaking Brother. I wonder, is that a Greek thing?
-->
@zedvictor4
We are also somewhat ordered by evolution, and conditioned by the past and limited by our physiology. So whether or not, we ever have total freedom of choice is debateable.
That is a rather blasphemous and prejudged statement to say the least. How can such a contrived theory order what is done when people of your ilk like to reiterate at monotonous regularity that everything that takes place is by perchance or, as they like to put it, randomly?
-->
@fauxlaw
Yep...I get that.
Not a million miles away from what I refer to as the universal sequence....Whereby the GOD principle is that which re-establishes or reinitiates the infinite possibility of matter and existence.
But ultimate knowledge and material development, rather than a floaty about bloke.
Worship seemingly necessary though, as a means of moving knowledge forwards.
And us...No more or less the matter of the universe that we developed from.... Here to further the purpose and development of matter, to re-establish the GOD principle and reinitiate the sequence.
So do you think that there never was a beginning and never will be an end?
-->
@Matthew_18
Read above and you will see that I do not necessarily run with perchance randomness.
And blasphemy is a religious concept.....And I suppose concerns someone of your "Ilk".
And if religion isn't a contrived theory, then I don't know what is.
-->
@zedvictor4
I thank you for your pointed, if not, mistaken reply. You used the word "religion" when obviously it should be "evolution" as per my dialogue.
You may not, as you quaintly iterated, "run" with perchance and randomness, however the theory of evolution does, and you did quote such.
If one had been educated beyond a particular equableness one would realize that Blasphemy is not merely a concept utilized by an elite few, it is bona fide word as realized in the Oxford Dictionary.
-->
@Matthew_18
Well...Blasphemy is obviously in a dictionary, and is as defined.
So I'm not sure at all, if blasphemy is necessarily, necessary or relevant when considering evolution.
And evolution being theoretical (just like religion), clearly allows for a variation in appreciation and interpretation.
And may I say that your own quaintness, is a welcome addition to Debateart.