A Scientific Theory on the given Freedom of God

[stuartcr]

...If God is above our human logic and understanding, how do we KNOW He is omniscient, omnipotent, and has given us freedom of choice?

He is a God and since God, a God of truth. Logic indicates that a God of truth would reveal himself to us and set forth truthful standard and testimony of himself and his dealing with humanity. He did so as recorded in the Scriptures. As I study these in all manner, I am amazed at how the symbols, numbers. Hebrew root pictograph, name meanings, etc, all connect and reveal truths in the context of the scripture passages they are found in that transcend all possibility that human beings concocted this book. There is a divine intelligence that testify and screams from the the bible on the truthfulness of God as being totally and absolutely omniscient, omnipotent, and omnipresent.

Freedom of choice could only be granted by God who is all powerful because what would he have to fear from this? If he denied it, how then could he really be omnipotent? This also testifies to the Goodness and fairness of God as well...

Since God is beyond our understanding, how do we know our concept of good and evil, is the same as His?

Only if we hear and see/understand his testimony he recorded for us in his dealing with humanity can we begin to gain insight into what is functionally good and is dysfunctionally evil. The fall into sin caused humanity to miss out on what functionally good really is. Therefore, only truth from God reveals the concepts concerning what is and what is not functionally good. There is no other way because we grope in the dark to make our way and justify dysfunctionally bad as functionally good so we need a new heart transformed by the word of God... to instruct us on these matters.

Why do you say logic indicates that a God of truth would reveal Himself to us? How do we know our logic is adequate to understand God?

Intelligent beings make themselves known. It is what intelligent beings do.

Intelligent beings can either find each other or ignore all the evidence another intelligent being is even around. Such ignoring evidence does not mean another is not around - it means one just presupposes the evidence is not there.

In fact, you made yourself known on this forum. and that is self evident truth, is it not?

Have nice day
-
-
-

Why do self-evident truths differ then?

[B. W.]

...Why do self-evident truths differ then?

An apple is an apple and an orange is an orange...

A member of this forum is either here writing or they are not...
-
-
-

[stuartcr]

I have no idea what your response meant.

[RickD]

Truths don't differ. An apple is an apple. An orange is an orange. Truth is the truth.

[stuartcr]

Truths don't differ. An apple is an apple. An orange is an orange. Truth is the truth.

What about self-evident truths?

[RickD]

Truths don't differ. An apple is an apple. An orange is an orange. Truth is the truth.

What about self-evident truths?

For example:

All triangles have 3 sides

All bachelors are unmarried

Something cannot exist, and not exist at the same time

Other than that, maybe B. W. can explain more what he meant.

[stuartcr]

Truths don't differ. An apple is an apple. An orange is an orange. Truth is the truth.

What about self-evident truths?

For example:

All triangles have 3 sides

All bachelors are unmarried

Something cannot exist, and not exist at the same time

Other than that, maybe B. W. can explain more what he meant.

Do you think I came to this forum to discuss self-evident truths about geometric figures?

[RickD]

Truths don't differ. An apple is an apple. An orange is an orange. Truth is the truth.

What about self-evident truths?

For example:

All triangles have 3 sides

All bachelors are unmarried

Something cannot exist, and not exist at the same time

Other than that, maybe B. W. can explain more what he meant.

Do you think I came to this forum to discuss self-evident truths about geometric figures?

You need to learn to crawl, before you can run a marathon!

[stuartcr]

What an easy answer, thank you.

[1over137]

From via to finally

(The last is not really running a marathon.)

[RickD]

From via to finally

(The last is not really running a marathon.)

Au contraire, ma soeur

[Sciencigion]

Wow, thanks for the great feedback guys. I gotta admit, I have yet to read all of them. Here are my answers to some of them so far:

Quote:
“When I call my dog back to the house, I know the results, he won't listen, if he is burying a bone.

But I must call him anyway, to let him know that I am happy to have him here. I don't have to, but then I know that he will miss me calling, besides he thinks that after I wait for two minutes it will be all the more a homely welcome, just because he runs faster. Well yes, I am pleased regardless of what he does, even though I know his responses to my calling. If I want him to go in the car for a ride, I have a different call, which he responds to straight away, bone or fresh meat makes no difference.

So I am all knowing, and yet I concede to whatever happens, because the dog makes me laugh.

I'm not sure what would be any different to an all knowing God, seeing that He has made all things for His pleasure.”
End of quote

Yet if I wanted him to go in the car for a ride, I could give the exact particular call I’d want to give since I know exactly in what way my dog would respond for any call. This gives me the ability to choose his actions based on my omniscient characteristic of knowing the consequences after any particular influence that I do (call). I can’t see how one would be conceding to whatever happens here, rather than choosing whatever happens.

Quote:
“I've been thinking about your Q's and I'm not sure I really get them. Maybe I have not gone into it like you have.

But it's interesting if we look at circumstances and the things which enable matter and life to exist, the finger points at God, because we can't even control whether we are born or not.
Life itself and all the circumstances prove that it takes a lot of factors - infinite in number, to produce and run the creation. And what part of that we play? very little?

What is freedom? Does it require us to have full control of all the factors which make our life? Are we limited, and is that limitation the end of free choice?

I need your feed back, to see if I am staying on course.”
End of quote


These questions are EXACTLY what I’m thinking and wondering about. You’re definitely on course .
I think the problem here is, after thinking this a bit through, that God is steering us to certain paths which decreases the number of possible options which he KNOWS what they are. This ability isn’t compatible with total freedom. Someone who’s above time and space couldn’t see this as freedom from his perspective.

It indeed takes a lot of factors, infinite in number to produce and run the creation. These factors must be intertwined and influence each other (as I explained how small influences could have indirect consequences to huge things). So, in other words, if one is able to influence one of these factors, ALL of the rest will be influenced by it consequently, thus that someone MUST be able influencing either everything or nothing. That in combination with being omniscient about the influences, means he could influence everything based on HIS permissions.

Quote: “It would be fair to say that we don't really know what is good and bad”

I’d have to completely agree with you on that since God is above our understanding.

B.W.

Quote:
“Despite this, God moves onward with his plans, purposes, and agenda more than able to all powerfully work through all things to steer these to his final goal mentioned in Rev 21:1 because he knows all (omnisciently) well in before any human being ever was.”
End of quote

I’m sorry for being stubborn but let’s compare the verse to what you said there. The verse says he did NOT know, yet you say that God is omniscient. According to you, this means that God PURPOSELY let the people do these actions since he’s able to influence (influencing them in certain ways before which brings them to these actions that God is aware of). Perhaps, this is the way God wanted to fulfil His plans, through these people’s actions. And that must be the only plausible theory if God is omniscient while at the same time being able to influence. Yet, the verse says that he did not know.

Is my previous conclusion about God not being omniscient, drawn from your verse, wrong in any way? If so, please explain to me why it’s wrong while the verse says he’s not omniscient (“did not know”)

As for the commentaries on the verse:
How is one so sure that by “I knew it not” God actually meant He didn’t approve it? Also, if He didn’t approve it, then why would God have influenced these people to certain paths that lead them to choose kings and princes while He knows that his influences would lead them to those choices? A simple analogy: It’s like letting go of a ball and see if the ball would rise up in the sky instead of falling down.

Stuartcr:

Quote:
“If God is above our human logic and understanding, how do we KNOW He is omniscient, omnipotent, and has given us freedom of choice?”

I completely agree with your statement there. Which actually brings the whole Bible in question since it says all of this together. I (as does a lot of others), on the other hand, am trying to make a logical theory out of those given characteristics in the Bible. How are we so sure that God is preceiving the same good and evil as us humans, while He is above our understanding? How are we so sure that God is only influencing small things while He is above our understanding? The questions could go on and on.

[B. W.]

Wow, thanks for the great feedback guys. I gotta admit, I have yet to read all of them. Here are my answers to some of them so far:

Quote:
“Despite this, God moves onward with his plans, purposes, and agenda more than able to all powerfully work through all things to steer these to his final goal mentioned in Rev 21:1 because he knows all (omnisciently) well in before any human being ever was.”

I’m sorry for being stubborn but let’s compare the verse to what you said there. The verse says he did NOT know, yet you say that God is omniscient. According to you, this means that God PURPOSELY let the people do these actions since he’s able to influence (influencing them in certain ways before which brings them to these actions that God is aware of). Perhaps, this is the way God wanted to fulfil His plans, through these people’s actions. And that must be the only plausible theory if God is omniscient while at the same time being able to influence. Yet, the verse says that he did not know.

Is my previous conclusion about God not being omniscient, drawn from your verse, wrong in any way? If so, please explain to me why it’s wrong while the verse says he’s not omniscient (“did not know”)

As for the commentaries on the verse:
How is one so sure that by “I knew it not” God actually meant He didn’t approve it? Also, if He didn’t approve it, then why would God have influenced these people to certain paths that lead them to choose kings and princes while He knows that his influences would lead them to those choices? A simple analogy: It’s like letting go of a ball and see if the ball would rise up in the sky instead of falling down.

Omniscient as defined in the dictionary means: having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.

Since for God to be actually God, he has to be Omniscient having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things or he is not God.

Suggest you explore these links, God's permissive-will link 1, and God's permissive-will link 2

Regarding the verse I cited - this is God's goal and he steers all things toward that end so that there will be no more sin, sickness, mortal death and all things perfect in the most profoundly just, righteous, and fair way that is way beyond what the human mind can fully comprehend.
-
-
-

[dfnj]

A very good day to you all,

Lately, I have been brainstorming about probably one of the most controversial religious subjects that has been discussed endlessly. Namely, the combination about 1. God being all-knowing (omniscient), 2. being able to influence and change anything (omnipotent) in time while at the same time 3. having given us freedom of choice.

Here’s the thing how I see it, the combination of being all-knowing while giving us freedom of choice at the same time are 2 characteristics that are compatible with each other. After all, I could know that you’re going outside tomorrow and die a carcrash but I’m not influencing you to do the choices that lead to that moment.

I could hear the sound of my brain cracking trying to comprehend the combination of these 3 characteristics (1. being all-knowing, 2. being omnipotent and 3. giving us freedom). How could they be compatible with each other?

You raise deep and important questions about the nature of God, the Universe, and the limitations of human language. It is very difficult to prove a right answer to your questions other than by assumptions of faith. With assumptions of faith there's nothing to argue and there's only one right way to think about these questions. Faith aside, you can still stretch your mind to hold a much larger view.

Start with the idea of omnipotence. The simple definition for omnipotence is all powerful. But I think it means more than that. An omnipotent God is not bounded by the laws of logic and human language. It is an assumption to think the laws of logic are universal and exist outside the realm of human language. Therefore, an omnipotent God does not have to be logically consistent. An omnipotent God can destroy himself and then bring himself back into existence. An omnipotent God is all possibilities all at the same time.

So does an omnipotent God have omniscience? Can God have a thought so complex that even he can't understand it? The answer is yes, of course he can. An omnipotent God has no limits that require logical consistency. An omnipotent God can create the Universe in any amount of time including all the fake fossil and carbon dating evidence. Essentially, if you hold to this large definition of omnipotence, God is so far beyond human comprehension there's really not much to talk about.

Now do you have freedom of choice? We all know the laws of physics pretty much determine every outcome in the Universe. But, if you believe in the multi-verse, then there are multiple dimensions where every Big Bang has its own version of reality. In one reality you make choice A and in another reality you make choice B. So in terms of all the possible dimensions of reality you have free choice but within any single Big Bang Universe you are predetermined to act out the laws of physics. The multi-verse allows a much bigger view of time allowing for every possible configuration, position, and location of electrons.

In some mult-verse dimensions you go to Hell. And in other multi-verse dimensions you go to Heaven. In any given Universe you probably have about 50/50 chance of making it into heaven unless you live in New Jersey and your chances are greatly reduced (especially around Atlantic City).

If you accept the idea of a multi-verse, then here's a really big thought: Our Big Bang was the result of a star collapsing to a black hole in another dimension. Since almost all the stars in our Universe collapse into a black hole, that's a lot of time!

Regardless of all the intellectual BS, I still think morality is important. But I have no way to prove why it is important. And knowing what is moral and what is not is very hard to determine. I think the essence of having a good religious faith is choosing to be moral and reverent in spite of everyone else pretending to speak for God by telling you what is moral and what is not. That is our real test of faith. Being reverent if the face of so many people pretending to be religious.

P.S. I saw a really great bumper sticker the other day: CAUTION: In case of rapture this car may swerve as my mother-in-law takes the wheel.

[RickD]

P.S. I saw a really great bumper sticker the other day: CAUTION: In case of rapture this car may swerve as my mother-in-law takes the wheel.

That's awesome!!!!