Faith

[Abrupt]

in order for them to believe people expect to many great things from god as proof.

Is coming down and showing one's self to prove you exist to everyone on earth really that much of a hassle that it interferes with gods schedule? I would never ask that much of god to proves its existence. In reality, things like curing cancer, healing the sick, preventing a disaster do not prove the existence of god since these things can be explained without god. If it is really all powerful it would simply show itself to everyone on the earth. It would require little effort on gods part and go a long way to prove its own existence than anything else would. So why doesn't god do this? Could it possibly be because god doesn't exist?

That would not be something that God would do (well I don't pretend to be the decider on what God would or would not do, it just seems pretty obvious that it isn't something He would do).  If he showed himself then we would "Know".  If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith".  Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can.  You may not believe in God, but if you are going to argue along these lines, then keep within the confines of the presentation.   If God revealed himself in such an irrefutable manner, we would lose the gift of free will and could not longer consider any of our good works as charity in addition to losing the blessing of Salvation from faith.  We would be acting because we "know", not because we "believe". 

[Falconer02]

If he showed himself then we would "Know".  If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith".  Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can.

This is an absurd reasoning that extends to an illusionary end. I honestly don't understand why people willingly bind their arms back so they can't see such an obvious problem with this thought process. It's common sense--

Rational process-
"Being A exists"
"Prove it."
"Hello. I am Being A."
"Excellent."

Religious process-
"Being A exists"
"Prove it."
"I can't because if I did, we'd all turn into robots. You dont't want to be a robot, do you? Just have faith that Being A exists."
"Oh. How convenient."

If God revealed himself in such an irrefutable manner, we would lose the gift of free will and could not longer consider any of our good works as charity in addition to losing the blessing of Salvation from faith.  We would be acting because we "know", not because we "believe".  

The free will argument is a complete contradiction. How does an omnipotent god allow for free will when he already knows the past/present/future of every outcome? The choices of all are known before they happen unless the religious crowd were to limit this gods power. Basic beliefs are based upon knowing things about the actual physical world-- if asked, they can usually be demonstrated. Religious faith is not and willingly blinds itself of reality and the problems that dwell within.

[Abrupt]

If he showed himself then we would "Know".  If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith".  Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can.

This is an absurd reasoning that extends to an illusionary end. I honestly don't understand why people willingly bind their arms back so they can't see such an obvious problem with this thought process. It's common sense--

Rational process-
"Being A exists"
"Prove it."
"Hello. I am Being A."
"Excellent."

Religious process-
"Being A exists"
"Prove it."
"I can't because if I did, we'd all turn into robots. You dont't want to be a robot, do you? Just have faith that Being A exists."
"Oh. How convenient."

It only seems absurd to you because you are considering it from the view of an unbeliever and I do understand your point of view as I had it once.  When viewed from my side I know that 'knowing' would completely remove 'faith' even though my belief would be 100 percent with no room for doubt.  Without my faith I would lose my salvation and although I cannot expect you to understand that it is the reasoning of why such things are.

If God revealed himself in such an irrefutable manner, we would lose the gift of free will and could not longer consider any of our good works as charity in addition to losing the blessing of Salvation from faith.  We would be acting because we "know", not because we "believe".  

The free will argument is a complete contradiction. How does an omnipotent god allow for free will when he already knows the past/present/future of every outcome? The choices of all are known before they happen unless the religious crowd were to limit this gods power. Basic beliefs are based upon knowing things about the actual physical world-- if asked, they can usually be demonstrated. Religious faith is not and willingly blinds itself of reality and the problems that dwell within.

Again I have shared these same doubts as you express here.  It is a complex question but it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us.  Even a simple concept such as infinity which we think we understand we truly do not.  We use the term and it makes sense in mathematics and physics but the scope of forever is beyond our capabilities to fully realize.  When dealing with forever, any views based on time are sort of lost, except as an expression of a measure from one point to another.

You are taking a deterministic view of omnipotency and that is to be expected based on our limited reasoning skills of such concepts.  If you assume we have free will then there is an unknown variable that can change and perhaps God has designed it as such that even he doesn't know the results (not that he is limited in this just perhaps he has given us a portion of his divinity that is involved in free will and is outside of such discernment).  I mean he would obviously be entirely aware of the coming events based on the current variables but what if part of free will is an event that can occur in between and alter things.  Again do not limit yourself to thinking in linear time, imagine outside of that.  Instead of always approaching it as "Christians are stupid and so is their god" you should perhaps approach it as "Just for the sake of argument how might this hold true".

[Falconer02]

It only seems absurd to you because you are considering it from the view of an unbeliever and I do understand your point of view as I had it once.

I hate to sound like I'm attacking (sorry if this sounds so), but unless something traumatic happened to you, this is pretty much impossible and I doubt your claim of being a typical non believer (unless I assume too much). Once one learns of the fictional qualities within religion, it's delusional to go back and thinking that way again.

When viewed from my side I know that 'knowing' would completely remove 'faith' even though my belief would be 100 percent with no room for doubt.  Without my faith I would lose my salvation and although I cannot expect you to understand that it is the reasoning of why such things are

Without proof, this is just an empty opinion since it can't be debated with-- allowing for impossible claims in an argument w/o proof of them happening or showing how they work is an absurdity.

It is a complex question but it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us.  Even a simple concept such as infinity which we think we understand we truly do not.  We use the term and it makes sense in mathematics and physics but the scope of forever is beyond our capabilities to fully realize.  When dealing with forever, any views based on time are sort of lost, except as an expression of a measure from one point to another.

Well if we can't debate rationally and only speculatively, pass the pipe over this way, girrrrl!  

You are taking a deterministic view of omnipotency and that is to be expected based on our limited reasoning skills of such concepts.  If you assume we have free will then there is an unknown variable that can change and perhaps God has designed it as such that even he doesn't know the results (not that he is limited in this just perhaps he has given us a portion of his divinity that is involved in free will and is outside of such discernment).  I mean he would obviously be entirely aware of the coming events based on the current variables but what if part of free will is an event that can occur in between and alter things.  Again do not limit yourself to thinking in linear time, imagine outside of that.  Instead of always approaching it as "Christians are stupid and so is their god" you should perhaps approach it as "Just for the sake of argument how might this hold true".

I have though. I've read up on it quite a bit in the past and have seen this argument in action many times. The religious will constantly try to spin the problem around and cover it up with straw man fallacies, but the basic problem is still there and they tend to veer away from it. It really is a blunt contradiction that the religious avoid because it only allows for 2 possibilites--
1.) God can allow for free will due to him not being all-powerful
2.) He cannot allow for free will due to his power and as a result, it can easily be argued that he is malevolent.

[debidoo]

Hebrews 11:1 Now faith is the substance of things hoped for, the evidence of things not seen. Now personally, I don't know how someone couldn't believe or have faith.  And, all I know is even if you don't believe in God, he still believes in you.    Also don't know how folks that don't believe make it through life, its tough and my faith is all that gets me through sometimes.  Well, good luck to all you, those who believe and those who don't.

[gaylasue]

I'll keep my faith in God and you can keep whatever it is that keeps you going....

[Abrupt]

It only seems absurd to you because you are considering it from the view of an unbeliever and I do understand your point of view as I had it once.

I hate to sound like I'm attacking (sorry if this sounds so), but unless something traumatic happened to you, this is pretty much impossible and I doubt your claim of being a typical non believer (unless I assume too much). Once one learns of the fictional qualities within religion, it's delusional to go back and thinking that way again.

I was certainly agnostic, probably not an atheist though as they are a very rare breed.  I held a deterministic view on peoples actions and did not hold myself responsible for my own -- I didn't believe in free will I held the position that we choose the only choice that makes sense to us based on our experiences and current variable.  Regarding something traumatic happening to me -- no, but it was at a culmination of both good and very bad points in my life.  A lot of things came together at one single point in time including questions I had and condemnations and the few single pleas I had ever made to any divine being.  The experience was unreal to me and an odd change took over me.  It was like a loud bell struck a single deafening and vibrating tone, but there was no sound and no shaking (but still everything I understood said such had just occurred even though none of my physical sense detected it).  That might not even be the best way to describe it and my memory may have fogged the experience as such things I find are unreliable even after a few months.  Regardless I sort of understand what is meant when talking about Saul and the scales falling from his eyes.  Peace filled me and everything I looked at seemed different.  A simple rock or leaf invoked such fascination from me that I could actually find pleasure (and even to this day) by looking at one.  Things I normally pursued seemed to take on a foolish nature and the worries and scurries of people seemed somehow misguided like they were wandering blindfolded in a maze or something (sorry if this sounds somewhat poetic but that is the only way that I can get across the odd alteration in me).  Perhaps one could argue that I lost my mind that day and went insane and if so then I would not trade back for it for anything.  All I can really tell you is that I was there, I know what I saw and what I felt and what happened.  I know who I was before that event and I know who I am after.  Things I could never understand before suddenly made sense and I could understand more of what I read in the Bible (still have difficulty with some things though but I suppose all of it isn't meant for everyone).

When viewed from my side I know that 'knowing' would completely remove 'faith' even though my belief would be 100 percent with no room for doubt.  Without my faith I would lose my salvation and although I cannot expect you to understand that it is the reasoning of why such things are

Without proof, this is just an empty opinion since it can't be debated with-- allowing for impossible claims in an argument w/o proof of them happening or showing how they work is an absurdity.
[/quote]

As you said, the point really isn't solvable by debate.  Those that don't believe want proof and those that do believe know that proof denies the very faith that is being proved.  If you are familiar with "Entanglement Theory" you can understand some of the points when discussing detecting and altering the spin of entangled particles and whether usefulness can be gained from it.

It is a complex question but it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us.  Even a simple concept such as infinity which we think we understand we truly do not.  We use the term and it makes sense in mathematics and physics but the scope of forever is beyond our capabilities to fully realize.  When dealing with forever, any views based on time are sort of lost, except as an expression of a measure from one point to another.

Well if we can't debate rationally and only speculatively, pass the pipe over this way, girrrrl!  
[/quote]

It is because of the constraints of what we can understand that limits the debate.  Would you agree that there are answers to things that a human brain lacks the ability to comprehend?  An example is "something always existing" and another is realized when every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that "It is impossible for us to exist".  Facing such limitations one can only speculate.

You are taking a deterministic view of omnipotency and that is to be expected based on our limited reasoning skills of such concepts.  If you assume we have free will then there is an unknown variable that can change and perhaps God has designed it as such that even he doesn't know the results (not that he is limited in this just perhaps he has given us a portion of his divinity that is involved in free will and is outside of such discernment).  I mean he would obviously be entirely aware of the coming events based on the current variables but what if part of free will is an event that can occur in between and alter things.  Again do not limit yourself to thinking in linear time, imagine outside of that.  Instead of always approaching it as "Christians are stupid and so is their god" you should perhaps approach it as "Just for the sake of argument how might this hold true".

I have though. I've read up on it quite a bit in the past and have seen this argument in action many times. The religious will constantly try to spin the problem around and cover it up with straw man fallacies, but the basic problem is still there and they tend to veer away from it. It really is a blunt contradiction that the religious avoid because it only allows for 2 possibilites--
1.) God can allow for free will due to him not being all-powerful
2.) He cannot allow for free will due to his power and as a result, it can easily be argued that he is malevolent.
[/quote]

Reminds me of the matrix quote "No, you've already made the choice. Now you have to understand it."  Think of it like this, if you watched a delayed viewing of a football game where you already knew the score, is it different than had you watched it live instead.  Now to confuse the issue also include watching it on delayed viewing without knowing the score.  This is a simplistic approach I know and the distinction I am trying to make is not if your experience would be different but whether watching what they did influences what choice they made doing it, or if the choice they made doing it influences what you watch.

[falcon9]

If he showed himself then we would "Know".  If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith".  Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can.
When viewed from my side I know that 'knowing' would completely remove 'faith' even though my belief would be 100 percent with no room for doubt.  Without my faith I would lose my salvation ...

How do you "know that knowing", (which is sophist because the conclusion is the premise), this would have the effect described?  Further, isn't is true that the assumption that "knowing" this would cause loss of "salvation" is itself a matter of "faith/belief"?  The process eschews reasoning and relies upon "faith" being both the premise and conclusion, (given that you stated "I know that 'knowing' ...").

It is a complex question but it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us. 

Apparently, such a question has no answer which does not rely entirely upon "faith", (that for which there is no evidence).

If you assume we have free will then there is an unknown variable that can change and perhaps God has designed it as such that even he doesn't know the results (not that he is limited in this just perhaps he has given us a portion of his divinity that is involved in free will and is outside of such discernment). 

"Perhaps", twice suggested?  If such a "god" is unaware of the results/effects of unknown variables, then such a "god" is not omnipotent, (conversely, being aware of such factors would operatively remove 'free will').

I mean he would obviously be entirely aware of the coming events based on the current variables but what if part of free will is an event that can occur in between and alter things.  Again do not limit yourself to thinking in linear time, imagine outside of that. 

Why "limit" ourselves at all when speculating?  Why not speculate that nonlinear effects would alter results paradoxically and manifest mutually-contradictory effects, (parallel 'universes' in which any variation possible is realized)?

[falcon9]

I held a deterministic view on peoples actions and did not hold myself responsible for my own -- I didn't believe in free will I held the position that we choose the only choice that makes sense to us based on our experiences and current variable. 

I'm not sure how making decisions based upon experience, current variables and available choices precludes having free will.

Those that don't believe want proof and those that do believe know that proof denies the very faith that is being proved.  If you are familiar with "Entanglement Theory" you can understand some of the points when discussing detecting and altering the spin of entangled particles and whether usefulness can be gained from it.

I'm familiar with quantum entanglement theory and have considered it, (just now), in light of "faith" long enough to formulate a line of reasoning.  Such an entanglement theory posits peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems.  These correlations are speculated to rely upon some indeterminate 'hidden variable', (not presumed to be "god" or "faith").  When you brought up quantum entanglement, the first thing that occurred to me was Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.  This theory seemed more apropo in relation to "faith" than entanglement theory however, not by much.  Essentially, Heisenberg postulates that if you know some variables, this would preclude knowing other variables.  As an analogy, you could have speculated that 'knowing' some religious aspect for sure would preclude knowing the "faith variable", (although this would not support the conclusion of a loss of "salvation" since that conclusion also relies upon 'faith').


 

Would you agree that there are answers to things that a human brain lacks the ability to comprehend?  An example is "something always existing" and another is realized when every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that "It is impossible for us to exist".  Facing such limitations one can only speculate.

It is inaccurate to assert that "every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that 'it is impossible for us to exist'".  It may conclude that it is _improbable_, (not impossible), however we manifestly do exist so, the inherent assumption you posited via entanglement analogy is that there 'must be' unknown variables involved.  In any given manifestation, there are unknown variables involved, (not necessarily 'unknowable' ones or, 'godlike' ones - just unknown ones).

Think of it like this, if you watched a delayed viewing of a football game where you already knew the score, is it different than had you watched it live instead.  Now to confuse the issue also include watching it on delayed viewing without knowing the score.  This is a simplistic approach I know and the distinction I am trying to make is not if your experience would be different but whether watching what they did influences what choice they made doing it, or if the choice they made doing it influences what you watch.

The analogy presented is simply another way of suggesting that events are deterministic however, awareness of such events is limited so that the 'illusion' of free will is preserved without the substance.  As you allude, the analogy is simplistically faulty in that humans experience events as they happen and make their decisions during the course of events, (rather than after watching them unfold).  Such decision processes may or, may not include variables-contingency-planning but, they are still made at the time preceding/during event occurance.

[Abrupt]

I held a deterministic view on peoples actions and did not hold myself responsible for my own -- I didn't believe in free will I held the position that we choose the only choice that makes sense to us based on our experiences and current variable. 

I'm not sure how making decisions based upon experience, current variables and available choices precludes having free will.

It doesn't.  Reread what I posted and if you still hold the same position reread it again until you see the missing word.

Those that don't believe want proof and those that do believe know that proof denies the very faith that is being proved.  If you are familiar with "Entanglement Theory" you can understand some of the points when discussing detecting and altering the spin of entangled particles and whether usefulness can be gained from it.

I'm familiar with quantum entanglement theory and have considered it, (just now), in light of "faith" long enough to formulate a line of reasoning.  Such an entanglement theory posits peculiar nonclassical correlations that are possible between separated quantum systems.  These correlations are speculated to rely upon some indeterminate 'hidden variable', (not presumed to be "god" or "faith").  When you brought up quantum entanglement, the first thing that occurred to me was Heisenberg's uncertainty principle.  This theory seemed more apropo in relation to "faith" than entanglement theory however, not by much.  Essentially, Heisenberg postulates that if you know some variables, this would preclude knowing other variables.  As an analogy, you could have speculated that 'knowing' some religious aspect for sure would preclude knowing the "faith variable", (although this would not support the conclusion of a loss of "salvation" since that conclusion also relies upon 'faith').

The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was exactly what I was originally thinking about but for the life of me I couldn't recall the name so I went instead with entanglement and avoided causality and instead focused on 'usefulness' of the information.  Interesting that we think similarly in such an argument regardless of which side.

Would you agree that there are answers to things that a human brain lacks the ability to comprehend?  An example is "something always existing" and another is realized when every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that "It is impossible for us to exist".  Facing such limitations one can only speculate.

It is inaccurate to assert that "every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that 'it is impossible for us to exist'".  It may conclude that it is _improbable_, (not impossible), however we manifestly do exist so, the inherent assumption you posited via entanglement analogy is that there 'must be' unknown variables involved.  In any given manifestation, there are unknown variables involved, (not necessarily 'unknowable' ones or, 'godlike' ones - just unknown ones).

I do not think it to be inaccurate at all.  I am talking pure logic, on/of true/false.  Regardless of the variables involved, these unknowns, there exists the pure multiplier of "something from nothing" or "always existed" and such things do not fall within the human ability of understanding.  Oh we can use these words and associate them with a meaning but their truth is beyond our ability to appreciate.  Our existence, according to what is possible for us to understand, is itself impossible...yet we are here aren't we?  Even including the Divine this still holds true and it is a human reasoning limitation.

Think of it like this, if you watched a delayed viewing of a football game where you already knew the score, is it different than had you watched it live instead.  Now to confuse the issue also include watching it on delayed viewing without knowing the score.  This is a simplistic approach I know and the distinction I am trying to make is not if your experience would be different but whether watching what they did influences what choice they made doing it, or if the choice they made doing it influences what you watch.

The analogy presented is simply another way of suggesting that events are deterministic however, awareness of such events is limited so that the 'illusion' of free will is preserved without the substance.  As you allude, the analogy is simplistically faulty in that humans experience events as they happen and make their decisions during the course of events, (rather than after watching them unfold).  Such decision processes may or, may not include variables-contingency-planning but, they are still made at the time preceding/during event occurance.

I didn't allude to it being faulty, I alluded to it being simplistic.  It goes to my assumption that Falconer02 believes he is free to choose (I think he does, and assume it based on the position of his argument) and also that he contends a belief in God prohibits free will.  If he does believe in freedom to choose then his position on God's omnipotence is faulty unless he also believes that us watching a sporting event prevents free will.

[Abrupt]

If he showed himself then we would "Know".  If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith".  Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can.
When viewed from my side I know that 'knowing' would completely remove 'faith' even though my belief would be 100 percent with no room for doubt.  Without my faith I would lose my salvation ...

How do you "know that knowing", (which is sophist because the conclusion is the premise), this would have the effect described?  Further, isn't is true that the assumption that "knowing" this would cause loss of "salvation" is itself a matter of "faith/belief"?  The process eschews reasoning and relies upon "faith" being both the premise and conclusion, (given that you stated "I know that 'knowing' ...").

The fact that most of my usage of 'knowing' or 'Know' were either capitalized or quoted should have clued you in on the meaning and distinction.  The testing of faith is something that sometimes occurs to religious people as a form of strengthening and tempering for greater purpose (and not as a punishment even though people at times feel that way).  If we 'Knew' during such tests then there would be no way to grow and no gain or purpose could possibly come from it.  It is faith that God rewards, and not knowledge, and our faith in him cannot grow if our knowledge of him is absolute.

It is a complex question but it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us. 

Apparently, such a question has no answer which does not rely entirely upon "faith", (that for which there is no evidence).

I don't really see where faith plays into this, can you expand on that?

If you assume we have free will then there is an unknown variable that can change and perhaps God has designed it as such that even he doesn't know the results (not that he is limited in this just perhaps he has given us a portion of his divinity that is involved in free will and is outside of such discernment). 

"Perhaps", twice suggested?  If such a "god" is unaware of the results/effects of unknown variables, then such a "god" is not omnipotent, (conversely, being aware of such factors would operatively remove 'free will').

I was merely giving examples off the top of my head and I don't honestly pretend to know, but there are other plausible answers I am sure.  Being aware would not remove free will, except when one restricted the view to a purely linear method while knowing ahead of time the answer (which suggest non linear knowledge and thus disqualify it being denial of free will).

I mean he would obviously be entirely aware of the coming events based on the current variables but what if part of free will is an event that can occur in between and alter things.  Again do not limit yourself to thinking in linear time, imagine outside of that. 

Why "limit" ourselves at all when speculating?  Why not speculate that nonlinear effects would alter results paradoxically and manifest mutually-contradictory effects, (parallel 'universes' in which any variation possible is realized)?

I never really held much to parallel universes.  I do feel that there was a separation (possibly two) at the formation of gravity that caused any particles travelling faster than the speed of light to be bound above such speeds and our typical physical universe as we see it to be bound inside.  I have some loose theories that the particle + mass question lies somewhere within such understanding as well as some answers to the missing matter/energy and maybe even singularities.  I also don't hold to the Higgs Boson and feel that my higgsless model is just as likely.  In such a model as I consider, time travel is not possible (well I haven't ruled out C^2) and one could travel multiples of C without violating causality.  I am thinking along the lines of tachyons and negative mass or imaginary mass (mathematically speaking).

[falcon9]

I held a deterministic view on peoples actions and did not hold myself responsible for my own -- I didn't believe in free will I held the position that we choose the only choice that makes sense to us based on our experiences and current variable. 

I'm not sure how making decisions based upon experience, current variables and available choices precludes having free will.

It doesn't.  Reread what I posted and if you still hold the same position reread it again until you see the missing word.

Rather than assuming what you meant, why not just indicate which word was "missing"?

The Heisenberg's uncertainty principle was exactly what I was originally thinking about but for the life of me I couldn't recall the name so I went instead with entanglement and avoided causality and instead focused on 'usefulness' of the information.  Interesting that we think similarly in such an argument regardless of which side.

Quantum entanglement theory doesn't actually avoid causality however, that's a long and complex discussion.  As to using Heisenberg's uncertainty principle to support your contention, we aren't thinking similarly on opposite sides of this argument; I simply recognized the analogy you were attempting to use.

Would you agree that there are answers to things that a human brain lacks the ability to comprehend?  An example is "something always existing" and another is realized when every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that "It is impossible for us to exist".  Facing such limitations one can only speculate.

It is inaccurate to assert that "every bit of reasoning of human logic concludes that 'it is impossible for us to exist'".  It may conclude that it is _improbable_, (not impossible), however we manifestly do exist so, the inherent assumption you posited via entanglement analogy is that there 'must be' unknown variables involved.  In any given manifestation, there are unknown variables involved, (not necessarily 'unknowable' ones or, 'godlike' ones - just unknown ones).

I do not think it to be inaccurate at all.  I am talking pure logic, on/of true/false.  Regardless of the variables involved, these unknowns, there exists the pure multiplier of "something from nothing" or "always existed" and such things do not fall within the human ability of understanding.

Whether you believe your assertion to be inaccurate or not, no logical argument can be made that we do not exist, (although such arguments were strenuously attempted during college philosophy courses).  As to the "come from nothing" premise you raise, please refer to my recent post in another thread concerning emergent phenomenon theory?

Oh we can use these words and associate them with a meaning but their truth is beyond our ability to appreciate.  Our existence, according to what is possible for us to understand, is itself impossible...yet we are here aren't we?  Even including the Divine this still holds true and it is a human reasoning limitation.

As I understand the premise, you're saying that there are no rational basis for our existance?  That's a contendable premise however, it doesn't make sense to jump to a faith-based attribution given insufficient information, (i.e., the W.A.G.).  The limits of reason do not constitute an excuse for jumoing off the deep end.  One must walk before they can run, run before they can jump and jump before they can fly.  Those who try to fly from the get-go end up like Icarus.

Think of it like this, if you watched a delayed viewing of a football game where you already knew the score, is it different than had you watched it live instead.  Now to confuse the issue also include watching it on delayed viewing without knowing the score.  This is a simplistic approach I know and the distinction I am trying to make is not if your experience would be different but whether watching what they did influences what choice they made doing it, or if the choice they made doing it influences what you watch.

The analogy presented is simply another way of suggesting that events are deterministic however, awareness of such events is limited so that the 'illusion' of free will is preserved without the substance.  As you allude, the analogy is simplistically faulty in that humans experience events as they happen and make their decisions during the course of events, (rather than after watching them unfold).  Such decision processes may or, may not include variables-contingency-planning but, they are still made at the time preceding/during event occurance.

I didn't allude to it being faulty, I alluded to it being simplistic. 

Indeed; a simplistic analogy is usually inherently inaccurate instead of being simplistically accurate.

It goes to my assumption that Falconer02 believes he is free to choose (I think he does, and assume it based on the position of his argument) and also that he contends a belief in God prohibits free will.  If he does believe in freedom to choose then his position on God's omnipotence is faulty unless he also believes that us watching a sporting event prevents free will.

No doubt Falconeer02 can address that point as he chooses.  Were I to venture to speculate; there are three options, (plus secondary variations on those three), available when considering "free will".  The first being that we have what is known as "free will", (e.g., the ability to make our own decisions without external control).  The second option; that we do not have "free will".  The third option; that we have a limited degree of "free will", (that is, either the 'illusion' of free will or, the freedom of choice within limited parameters but, not on a macro-level).  Incidentally, neither the first nor the third reflect my stance on the subject, I merely present the available options.  If yet another option occurs to you, (or anyone), please indicate them.

[falcon9]

If he showed himself then we would "Know".  If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith".  Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can.
When viewed from my side I know that 'knowing' would completely remove 'faith' even though my belief would be 100 percent with no room for doubt.  Without my faith I would lose my salvation ...

How do you "know that knowing", (which is sophist because the conclusion is the premise), this would have the effect described?  Further, isn't is true that the assumption that "knowing" this would cause loss of "salvation" is itself a matter of "faith/belief"?  The process eschews reasoning and relies upon "faith" being both the premise and conclusion, (given that you stated "I know that 'knowing' ...").

The fact that most of my usage of 'knowing' or 'Know' were either capitalized or quoted should have clued you in on the meaning and distinction.

It did; I recognize sophistry when someone tries it - no matter what punctuation is used.  The questions asked remain unanswered; how do you know?

The testing of faith is something that sometimes occurs to religious people as a form of strengthening and tempering for greater purpose (and not as a punishment even though people at times feel that way).  If we 'Knew' during such tests then there would be no way to grow and no gain or purpose could possibly come from it.  It is faith that God rewards, and not knowledge, and our faith in him cannot grow if our knowledge of him is absolute. ]/quote]


To reiterate the point of contention; the presumption you are presenting is that 'faith is a test'.  Firstly, this a priori assumption is not a given and it constitutes an inherent claim, (that the concept of religious 'faith' itself requires "faith").  Secondly, it is this same religious 'faith' which is intended to support the secondary premise that "It is faith that God rewards, and not knowledge".  No doubt I'm not the only one to twig to the circularity of such a pseudo-syllogism.

It is a complex question but it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us.

Apparently, such a question has no answer which does not rely entirely upon "faith", (that for which there is no evidence).

I don't really see where faith plays into this, can you expand on that?

The context you and Falconeer were discussing was that of the concept of "free will".  You maintained that this was/is a complex question and that "it is also a question that has an answer that is beyond our ability to understand even if an answer were given us."  The latter assertion quoted implicitly requires 'faith' because it was asserted that an answer would be beyond our ability to understand.  This assertion also glosses over our ability to learn to understand what we don't and directly suggests that an answer we could not understand is effectively no answer.

If you assume we have free will then there is an unknown variable that can change and perhaps God has designed it as such that even he doesn't know the results (not that he is limited in this just perhaps he has given us a portion of his divinity that is involved in free will and is outside of such discernment).

"Perhaps", twice suggested?  If such a "god" is unaware of the results/effects of unknown variables, then such a "god" is not omnipotent, (conversely, being aware of such factors would operatively remove 'free will').

I was merely giving examples off the top of my head and I don't honestly pretend to know, but there are other plausible answers I am sure.  Being aware would not remove free will, except when one restricted the view to a purely linear method while knowing ahead of time the answer (which suggest non linear knowledge and thus disqualify it being denial of free will).

On the contrary, being aware of all of the variations of all variables, (manifested or, unmanifested), would essentially constitute a deterministic/clockwork universe where choice is possible however, the outcomes of choices are knowable in advance.  If outcomes are accurately, (rather than generally), knowable in advance then there are none of those "unknown variables" you previously mentioned.  Nonlinear advance knowledge wouldn't disqualify a denial of free will however, neither does it support that double negative.

I mean he would obviously be entirely aware of the coming events based on the current variables but what if part of free will is an event that can occur in between and alter things.  Again do not limit yourself to thinking in linear time, imagine outside of that.

Why "limit" ourselves at all when speculating?  Why not speculate that nonlinear effects would alter results paradoxically and manifest mutually-contradictory effects, (parallel 'universes' in which any variation possible is realized)?

I never really held much to parallel universes.  I do feel that there was a separation (possibly two) at the formation of gravity that caused any particles travelling faster than the speed of light to be bound above such speeds and our typical physical universe as we see it to be bound inside.  I have some loose theories that the particle + mass question lies somewhere within such understanding as well as some answers to the missing matter/energy and maybe even singularities.  I also don't hold to the Higgs Boson and feel that my higgsless model is just as likely.  In such a model as I consider, time travel is not possible (well I haven't ruled out C^2) and one could travel multiples of C without violating causality.  I am thinking along the lines of tachyons and negative mass or imaginary mass (mathematically speaking).

For more on this subject, I'll again refer you to a recent post I made in another thread regarding emergent phenomenon, (which may parallel the concepts you've touched upon without necessarily involving parallel universes).

[JediJohnnie]

in order for them to believe people expect to many great things from god as proof.

Is coming down and showing one's self to prove you exist to everyone on earth really that much of a hassle that it interferes with gods schedule? I would never ask that much of god to proves its existence. In reality, things like curing cancer, healing the sick, preventing a disaster do not prove the existence of god since these things can be explained without god. If it is really all powerful it would simply show itself to everyone on the earth. It would require little effort on gods part and go a long way to prove its own existence than anything else would. So why doesn't god do this? Could it possibly be because god doesn't exist?

That would not be something that God would do (well I don't pretend to be the decider on what God would or would not do, it just seems pretty obvious that it isn't something He would do).  If he showed himself then we would "Know".  If we "Know" then we cannot have "Faith".  Knowing cannot save us, but Faith can.  You may not believe in God, but if you are going to argue along these lines, then keep within the confines of the presentation.   If God revealed himself in such an irrefutable manner, we would lose the gift of free will and could not longer consider any of our good works as charity in addition to losing the blessing of Salvation from faith.  We would be acting because we "know", not because we "believe". 

Great post,Abrupt.

I think a lot of skeptics resent the fact that faith in God is required for Salvation.God prizes Faith above all,and rewards us for our faith.Believing because we have seen with our eyes is worth little. Jesus told Thomas, “Because you have seen me, you have believed; blessed are those who have not seen and yet have believed.”

[dwickizer]

Why are people straying away from Religion? Is the belief in God no longer necessary?

For me; saying my prayers and reading the Bible each night helps me, I don't know "why" some individuals have strayed away from God, but he is a part of my life each and every single day.