Thread: Does God have free will?

Welcome back, whoever you are. You might be interested to know that a new forum has been created specifically for religion and spirituality related topics. You'll probably want to PM a mod and ask them to move it.

As for your question; What, exacly, does "God is love" mean? I'm guessing you're not trying to say "God is: 1 an intense feeling of deep affection. 2 a deep romantic or sexual attachment to someone. 3 a great interest and pleasure in something. a person or thing that one loves. 5 (in tennis, squash, etc.) a score of zero."

Originally posted by pyrhho
Long time no see y'all! sorry i don't post as often as i should anymore.

Anyway, here's one that's been baking my noodle. Does God have free will? The bible specifically says, \"God is Love.\" and it also specifically outlines what Love would do in any given situation (well, it gives outlines). so could God ever NOT do what love should? Could God have chosen to NOT make us? If god hadn't made us, would he still be God?

Well, that's it. Fight!

Treating God as though He is locked into some system of mathematical absolutes is to diverge away from the God of Revelation and History to the God as defined by speculative Greek Philosophy. Yes, that antichrist Paul may have said that God is Love, and yes, some Greek Emperor had published Paul in the bible (because paul specifically declared that the State was supreme over Religion, and so paul was published not because he was Religious but only because he was political), but that hardly can be said to define paul as the Word of God, no matter what the protestants maintain.

God is a great deal more than Love. We also have Justice and Wisdom to think about. Often times Justice and Wisdom would preclude Love, no?

Jesus came close to Godliness... more than most. And did not Jesus, in Justice, after His betrayal, did He not put a curse upon Jerusalem. It was not Love that assured that "not one stone of Jerusalem will be left standing upon another". We must keep in mind that the Religions of Revelation speak as often of God's Wrath as of his Love.

Indeed, the modern Marian Revelations (those messages from the Apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, our modern Goddess) insist upon the need of penance and atonement in order to divert and mitigate the "wrath" of God. God may have a great deal of Love for those who repent, but this Love falls far short of being so unconditional that it yet tolerates willful Evil. God is the Good Shepherd that makes a choice to protect His sheep by treating the wolves as enemies.

Love must always indicate a preference. He who loves everything, loves nothing. Love indicates a choice, a focus. Anyone who has ever been betrayed in 'love' knows this -- that a love that can spread itself out far and wide is not very deep.

So for the love of God to matter and be relevent, it must be limited and selective. And Revelation and History (mythology , if you prefer that word) support this notion. It was not an all embracing Love that motivated God to destroy the most part of the Human Race with the Great Flood. His Love for a few remaining good people was His incentive for destroying the far greater majority who would have endangered the virtue of His favorites.

God has no will. His will is that of his believers. Without believers there is no god.

BECOUSE HE WOULD RUN OUT OF MANA?!??!!11!!1

no, becouse he is created by people. Like a DC, allthough we might not know it all of his actions and ways are inspired by our own minds.

Beouse 'we'' made him up.

God is the epitome of free will. First off, it was He that created us. Now, He didn't need to create us, but He did for His pleasure and glory. Since we were created in God's image (roughly) we were created with the ability to make our own decisions.

Some people ask that if God "could not" tempt us then why did he place the Tree of Life and the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil in Eden in the first place. Because what good is being the given the ability to choose if there is only one choice. It brings God pleasure to see us choose us, but how much more pleasure does He get if we choose Him over alternatives.

Originally posted by 1Corinthians 13
4Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5It is not rude, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres. 8Love never fails.

Since God is love (among other things), He is all of the above qualities because He chooses to be. He is capable of doing all things, but because of His divine wisdom, He chooses to do only those things which bring Him glory and fulfill His divine plan for man. In the book of Jeremiah, we are told that God "knows the plans I have for you; a plan to prosper you and not to harm you, to give you a future and a hope."

It's early so my thoughts aren't all together, but what it boils down to is this: God is capable of doing all things, but He chooses only to do that which is in His divine plan.

Well, Amethyst Star may have been worth considering, that is, until she quoted Paul the Antichrist, which indicates that she must be wrong, no matter how good it all sounds.

You see that pretty passage about Love written by Paul. You see, Paul wanted his congregations to suppress their doubts regarding all of the accusations that were coming in from the True Apostles regarding him. Paul wanted to put the accusations and incriminations in a bad light, by making unreflected and mindless acceptance, Love, a virtue. Indeed, such love is still resorted to by those in the Christian Organizations that betray their trusts and are caught violating all decency ... they quickly bring up the point of this Paulist Love and Christian Forgiveness, as though it is a Licence for Evil.

Christ told us that the Antichrist would come as a Wolf in Sheeps Clothing. What is this Paulist Injunction to Unconditional Love but the effective acceptance of the Wolf into our midst?

We only have to consult the One Sermon of Christ that we find in the Scriptures to know that all of Paul is wrong. Christ was all about standards of Righteousness and warnings of impending Judgment. Christ was specifying adherence to the Good, and not a Love for Evil as Paul would insist upon.

Originally posted by pyrhho
here's one that's been baking my noodle. Does God have free will? The bible specifically says, \"God is Love.\" and it also specifically outlines what Love would do in any given situation (well, it gives outlines). so could God ever NOT do what love should? Could God have chosen to NOT make us? If god hadn't made us, would he still be God? *

Well, that's it. Fight!

First to understand this question. You must understand what love is.
Knowledge, wisdom, understanding. Without these your free will is even more limited than you imagine it is with a percieved binding to the obligations of love. Which are not really obligations, but a desire out of wisdom to follow. It cannot be a force against free will, nor is it a burden or limitation to it by any standard. It is part of you and that which makes you free. What makes you free and a part of you is foolish to deny. Even if you have the ability to do so.

Pyrrho,

Good to see you back. I hope things are going well with you.

I am of the opinion that God has free will. I see all life around me has it to greater or lesser degree, and it seems that as you go up the scale, that the free will keeps on getting greater and greater. Since God is the greatest of all, I'm sure he has a latitude of choice that is similar to human choice compared to that of an animal.

Perhaps that's why I respect Him so much, that he has great power but that he chooses to not be corrupted by it. Even from moment to moment, he has the choice to do whatever is in his sphere of control.

However, He is still bound by the same thing we human beings are bound by: the law of cause and effect. In otherwords, if he were to choose evil, he would, like us, eventually suffer the consequences of his wrong choice. Along with His power, he must also have a superior outlook into the future, knowing better than us the futility of rebelling against natural law.

However he is, I only know that he Loves me. Even, and especially, when times are difficult, I am consumed with the faith that it is given to me as a blessing that, if I have my wits about me, I can overcome and become stronger in the process. I am unshaken in this faith and cannot be shaken. I bless His Holy Name for the struggles he allows me to endure, to experience, to learn from, to quicken me, making me stronger every day of every month of every year of my life, and lives.

I do my best to align my own free will with his Free Will knowing that he is Love.

And Leo, even if an AntiChrist says the truth, you must agree with him for Truth's sake. To do otherwise puts you in the role of what you accuse Paul of, and I know you seek to be the better man. God is Love, whether spoken by a daemon, an ignoramous, or an AntiChrist. God is Love.

If gOD is all-knowing, gOD cannot have free will. Simple as that.

If indeed there is such a divine being, it could never have free will. It would be bound to it's creations, much like parents are to their children. All of the decisions it would make would have to revolve around those creations.

That really is a thoughtful question. From my understanding, God does have free will because that is the only way to love. Wanting and choosing to love are essential for this equation. So if God has a choice, then he may follow through it.

We can explore certain characteristics.

For example, God's very nature.

"I will be what I will be" Exodus 3:14

we are faithless,he will remain faithful, for he cannot disown himself. 2 Tim 3:14

This tells me God's purpose will be done within and throughout all the changes presented. God's omniscience doesn't inhibit him from free will, since he already has decided.

Originally posted by brady
If gOD is all-knowing, gOD cannot have free will. Simple as that.

It may be a simple sentence. But it was not logical.
Why is it that faithbusters oftern will not use logic?
I can think of several reasons but I will leave that till another time.....

Firstly,
You start with a premise.
If god is all knowing.
from this premise you conclude. He cannot have free will.

Now here I would point out using logic involves using a correct premise for obvious reasons.

First to prove the premise wrong is simple.
God all knowing equals God infinitely knowing.
Infinite can never be reached.
thus, god is not all knowing.

Here we can see how your premise is illogical. Even if it was a correct premise. You would still not be getting it right with your conlcusion.

Eg

God infinitely knowing (impossible as demonstrated above)
hypothetically equals god being all powerful.
hypothetically All powerful having infinite potential and ability.
To have free will is a potential and ability
hypothetically being all powerful, God can thus have free will.

Using this incorrect premise hypothetically. You still come to a different conclusion if you are being logical.

Both the premise and conclusion quoted above are not logical. And also put together illogically. (a real mess for 1 sentence ey?) As a result it is obviously incorrect.

Originally posted by Gwendolyn
If indeed there is such a divine being, it could never have free will. It would be bound to it's creations

The argument of free will has being discussed a number of times. But maybe we need to start a new thread about this.

Premise= God creates
If god creates, he has creations.
Definition=\"Value\" = All Round Potenital/ability and state of structure of creation
If gods creations exist, they must be equal or less in value, to it's creator.
Hence Gods creations are not of more value than God.
God is in effect not of less value than his creations
Therefore God is therefore not bound (limited) by his creations.

If anyone can refute anything I have posted here please do so.

Originally posted by Gwendolyn
much like parents are to their children. All of the decisions it would make would have to revolve around those creations.

First we must realize why god decided to create. If god thought it would be better not creating, God would have the power to make that decision. but it was not logical.

Also because you are bound to decisions revolving around your creations. Does not mean you are limited by your creations. It means you have decided to take on a responsibility for caring for those creations, or children. And out of love you do so feeling and having no more limitation than you orginally did as it was all the creators decision to start with.

Nirvana, you need to take a reading comprehension class.

If you re-read my simple sentence, you'll notice that I used the word "If".

By using the phrase, 'if gOD is all-knowing"', I am not saying or even implying that God is, in fact, all-knowing. I for one don't even think gOD exists, but that's another issue.

Now, what do you do? You tell me that gOD is not all-knowing, and therefore conclude that gOD does have free will.

That's all fine and dandy, but who and what are you disagreeing with? Your assumption that I think gOD is all-knowing and does not have free will? It doesn't make my premise or conclusion any less logical. Last time I checked, "If" statements cannot be deemed correct or incorrect by their very nature.

Furthermore, the reasoning behind my premise is the Christian definition of gOD (which, for the record, I'm not saying is correct). I went to Catholic High School for 5 years and was always taught that gOD is all-knowing.

I do not think that gOD exists, I was simply using the Catholic definition of gOD as a premise. If you disagree, take it up with the Catholics, not me.

Now, let's look at your 'logical' argument, shall we?

God all knowing equals God infinitely knowing. *
Infinite can never be reached. *
thus, god is not all knowing.[/b]

You start with a premise assuming that there is an infinite number of things to be known. I would agree that there is a massive amount of things to know, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's "infinite".

Next, you continue to say that "infinite can never be reached". I'm not really sure where you're getting that from. Sounds like another blind assumption to me. But I assume you'll explain it by telling me how much more enlightened you are than me.

If you re-read my simple sentence, you'll notice that I used the word \"If\".

This is similar to how a lawyer will use the subjective words within a stated law to free the situation/subject from that law. (or in this case a premise and conclusion) I don't care if you used the word \"IF\" as your scapegoat. You made a statement along the lines of god being all knowing. I explained the illogic in this assumption and conclusion, wether you believe it or not. You mentioned something illogical so I pointed it out. What do you expect.

Now, what do you do? You tell me that gOD is not all-knowing, and therefore conclude that gOD does have free will.

I do not therefore conclude this, from that premise. That is not the line of reasoning I used. But they are two statements that I made within my post. I suggest you read and think about the reasoning used.

\"If\" statements cannot be deemed correct or incorrect by their very nature.

Then don't make a conclusion as if you are saying something that has a purpose.
IF you are serious about using the word \"if\" then the entire sentence is pointless as well as illogical. Either way this has little to do with my reasoning about what was said in it.

God all knowing equals God infinitely knowing.
Infinite can never be reached.
thus, god is not all knowing.

You start with a premise assuming that there is an infinite number of things to be known. I would agree that there is a massive amount of things to know, but I wouldn't necessarily agree that it's \"infinite\".
Next, you continue to say that \"infinite can never be reached\". I'm not really sure where you're getting that from. Sounds like another blind assumption to me. But I assume you'll explain it by telling me how much more enlightened you are than me.

[/quote]

Truth is infinite. We could make a thread to discuss this if you like. But I am still waiting for you to refute that statement if you disagree with it.

Infinite can never be reached is not a blind assumption it is an understanding of the term 'Infinite'. It involves a value that is always larger or beyond than which is defined. Soon as your define a number for example. Infinite is beyond it. You can never define a value that equals infinite. In this example of numeric value. We can see how infinite can never be reached.

Nothing is for free

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed

Premise= God creates
If god creates, he has creations.
Definition=\"Value\" = All Round Potenital/ability and state of structure of creation
If gods creations exist, they must be equal or less in value, to it's creator.
Hence Gods creations are not of more value than God.
God is in effect not of less value than his creations
Therefore God is therefore not bound (limited) by his creations.

Maybe I am missing something, but how exactly is this divine being not limited by what it creates?? Just because a divine power is has more power over everything else, does not mean he isn't bound to make it's decisions in the best interest of those he has created? A divine power is all-loving and stuff right? If you truly love something, you put the interests of those things before your own interests. This alone is a limitation! I mean, how is it not?

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed


Also because you are bound to decisions revolving around your creations. Does not mean you are limited by your creations. It means you have decided to take on a responsibility for caring for those creations, or children. And out of love you do so feeling and having no more limitation than you orginally did as it was all the creators decision to start w.

So, uh...What does this mean anyway? This whole statement is a contradiction of itself. If you are "bound" to anything, you are limited by it. I imagine that being a God would be an experience much like that of a parent. What do parents do? They take responsibility for what they have 'created'. How do they do this? They give up parts of their lives so that they can nurture their young andtry to lead their posterity into a life that is fruitiful and happy. They do things such as:
-Stop smoking
-Get a job
-Turn their lives upsidedown to accomadate those children
-Etc
Because their lives are focused on their children, they must do these things. They are limited by their young and themselves. How is this different from what God does?

Originally posted by Gwendolyn+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gwendolyn)</div>

If you truly love something, you put the interests of those things before your own interests. This alone is a limitation! I mean, how is it not?[/b]

You are talking about selfless love. True love knows nothing of limitation. Only freedom. For it is the law.

<!--QuoteBegin-Gwendolyn
If you are \"bound\" to anything, you are limited by it

Whatever you are a slave to, that will be your master. If you are a slave to the law. You are a master of freedom. You could say you are bound to the law and so limited by freedom, but it is an oxymoron statement.

He who over-steppeth the Law shall be punished,
for only through Law comes the freedom of men
-thoth

What law is this talking about? The law of the universe? Science maybe? Nature? Cause and effect? It makes no difference what you call it. Through it is the only way out of limitation.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nirvana Starseed)</div>

You are talking about selfless love. True love knows nothing of limitation. Only freedom. For it is the law.[/b]

So, basically what you are saying is that God is an omni-benevolent, all-loving being that devotes itself to 'his children', however it is not selfless. This does not make sence. How can you God be loving if he does not put his creations interests before his own? In this respect, he is totally limited. Well, if at least trying to be selfless isn't a part of true love, I don't know what is. Perhaps you could explain true love to me, since you understand it so well....

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed@

Whatever you are a slave to, that will be your master. If you are a slave to the law. You are a master of freedom. You could say you are bound to the law and so limited by freedom, but it is an oxymoron statement.

Actually, being a slave to the law limits your personal freedom. No one is totally free. We are all bound to the law only because we must do so in order to exist with other people in large groups. Nothing is free, as Howetzer has already pointed out. Nothing can ever be free because of all the responsibility and rules we have pinned upon ourselves and one another. If God made us in it's image, than how is it any different than we? I mean man popped out of the womb power-hungry and ready to press limitations upon ourselves and others. What makes God so special, aside from all the 'powers' it has, if indeed such a thing exists?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana Starseed

What law is this talking about? The law of the universe? Science maybe? Nature? Cause and effect? It makes no difference what you call it. Through it is the only way out of limitation.

So, if you don't know what law you are speaking about specifically, what point are you making by using this statement? I don't even think you explained exactly how the 'law' you were talking about worked in relation to limitation.

Originally posted by Gwendolyn+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gwendolyn)</div>

Perhaps you could explain true love to me, since you understand it so well.... [/b]

The inner fire is the most potent of all force.

<!--QuoteBegin-gwendolyn
I don't even think you explained exactly how the 'law' you were talking about worked in relation to limitation.

Limitation exists when you do not consider the law. When you seek that which is not of the law. All is law. That which is not of the law, such exists only in the illusion of the senses.

Originally posted by Nirvana Starseed+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Nirvana Starseed)</div>

The inner fire is the most potent of all force. [/b]

This really doesn't answer the question. For one thing, why is it the kind of love that does not include selflessness? I mean if God is infalliable, why isn't it capable of demonstrating a selfless nature?
<!--QuoteBegin-Nirvana Starseed

Limitation exists when you do not consider the law. When you seek that which is not of the law. All is law. That which is not of the law, such exists only in the illusion of the senses.

I do not think this anwers my queries either. It makes no sence. Law=Limitation...We place these unavooidable limitations upon ourselves. If God made human beings in the image of itself, how is it that it does not place limitation on itself as people do? God is obligated to it's "children". This is limitation.

Also, in the future, I think it would benifit everyone if you stopped evading the questions and be specific with your point, Nirvana Starseed. I really think that I could understand your stance more thourally if you did this. Do not assume that I can automatically understand exactly what you mean; I am not clairvoyant. So, even if you think your concept is a simple one to understand, be specific in explaining your point.

Originally posted by Gwendolyn+--><div class='quotetop'>QUOTE(Gwendolyn)</div>

why is it the kind of love that does not include selflessness?[/b]

Love does include and is capable of Selflessness. I never said otherwise. The wise look ever for wisdom in what is written, while disregarding any ignorance present as it has no value. Remember and note that the fool sees wisdom as ignorance and disregards it. He will regard whatever ignorance present as wisdom and consider it valuable.

<!--QuoteBegin-Gwendolyn
I think it would benifit everyone if you stopped evading the questions and be specific with your point

I am as direct and specific as I can be. I have answered your questions and you have not understood. That part I cannot do for you. If you have a question than ask. If you can refute anything I say do so. But it is useless to state I am evading questions, not being specific, or other complaints, if you are not able to explain how I am doing this.

Originally posted by Nirvana
This is similar to how a lawyer will use the subjective words within a stated law to free the situation/subject from that law. (or in this case a premise and conclusion) I don't care if you used the word \"IF\" as your scapegoat. You made a statement along the lines of god being all knowing. I explained the illogic in this assumption and conclusion, wether you believe it or not. You mentioned something illogical so I pointed it out. What do you expect.

Then don't make a conclusion as if you are saying something that has a purpose.
IF you are serious about using the word \"if\" then the entire sentence is pointless as well as illogical. Either way this has little to do with my reasoning about what was said in it.

You use catholic definitions alot when you don't believe in them. I don't see how this helps your cause. Using a false premise whoever comes up with it is not logical. You must use a correct premise. Now while doing this even IF you do use the word \"IF\" to superficially protect your statement from the illogic in it. It does not change the incorrect reasoning within the sentence.

Wow. I've never seen someone put so much effort into weaseling out admitting they were wrong.

I'll break it down for you.

IF gOD is all/infinitely knowing.

(I use the term 'IF' because not everyone believes this to be true. It appears that you are one of these people, therefore it doesn't apply to you. Stop reading and go away. However, if you agree that gOD is all/infinitely knowing....continue.)

Then gOD cannot have free will.

This is a simple "If-then" logical argument, used the world over as a powerful analytical, decision-making and critical thinking tool.

Now, if you don't think that gOD is all/infinitely knowing, I'd love to discuss that with you in another thread. I, for one, am inclined to agree since gOD would have to exist in order to have that property.

Originally posted by brady
This is a simple \"If-then\" logical argument, used the world over as a powerful analytical, decision-making and critical thinking tool.

I'll try one of my own to give you an example of how impracticle such a statement can be. (when the premise is false)

IF the earth is flat, I will fall off the edge if I keep sailing straight ahead

First step to use this statement to it's full effectiveness!!! Is examine the IF part. That is very important thing to do. Else it is not going to be the logical, powerful analytical, decision making and critical thinking tool. As you have described it to be.

first step
1) Can I sail straight ahead without falling off the edge? Yes. The premise has already being proven false. The earth not being flat.

I have already done this with your If-then statement, Your IF premise being flawed through my logical reasoning. In your last post it's evident you didn't seem to realize I proved your premise false. I tried to explain this again in different words for your benifit. Cause your a pretty cool dude and I like you. But I will not repeat myself for the third time about this.

PEace.........

We should discuss that god infinitely knowing thing because I think there may be something to be gained form discussing that.

Originally posted by Nirvana
I'll try one of my own to give you an example of how impracticle such a statement can be.

IF the earth is flat, I will fall off the edge if I keep sailing straight ahead

The key word there is \"can\". Of course such statements can be ridiculous. If I had a huge neck they might call me Giraffe Man. If I was taller, I'd need longer pants. If Jesus was gay, the church's view on homosexuality is hypocritical.

But this isn't the point. My statement was extremely useful because many people do believe that gOD is all knowing and also believe that gOD has free will. I was merely pointing out the fact that those two properties are mutually exclusive.

No need to get your panties all up in a bunch.

We should discuss that god infinitely knowing thing because I think there may be something to be gained form discussing that.[/b]

Sounds good to me.

EDIT: Your argument would be much more sound if you had said, "If the world is flat and it has edges and there are no land masses between my sailboat and said edges..."