The Student Room Group

What would Jesus do with this?

An all loving god sees a sexual assault occur. How would an an all loving god respond to the situation that expresses love to both the victim and perpetrator?

I asked this to someone else but they didn't reply to it. So made thread on topic.

Conditions to consider.
I include Christian/catholic description because the origional discussion went to that direction. So there are theological aspects to consider.
A. Free will exists
B. Free will is given so we may have the choice to accept God.
C. All loving God would not compromise or violate free will.
D. There are things we do that establishes or promotes us accepting God or denying God (sin)
E. Sin exists and is describes as something that violates ourselves, others, and God.
F. Sexual assault is a sin.

My conclusion:
I don't know.


Your thoughts?

Scroll to see replies

Huh? /gen
I believe that Christ would support and help the sexual assault survivor to come to terms with the attack, so that they can positively move forward with life without having anger or fear from the traumatic events hold them back.

As regards the culprit, the possibilities would depend on whether they had consciously chosen to do evil.
Or were profoundly disturbed, possibly too unwell to be responsible for their actions or even unaware of aware of what had occurred.
Reply 3
Original post by LoserBoyShae
Huh? /gen


original comment to me was,
"an all loving god would respond to a victim of assault, not be idle"
so I presented a follow up question
"how would all loving god show love to both victim and the person attacking the victim?"

in other words how does an all loving god respond to both people instead f just considering conditions for victim.
Reply 4
Original post by da_nolo
An all loving god sees a sexual assault occur. How would an an all loving god respond to the situation that expresses love to both the victim and perpetrator?

I asked this to someone else but they didn't reply to it. So made thread on topic.

Conditions to consider.
I include Christian/catholic description because the origional discussion went to that direction. So there are theological aspects to consider.
A. Free will exists
B. Free will is given so we may have the choice to accept God.
C. All loving God would not compromise or violate free will.
D. There are things we do that establishes or promotes us accepting God or denying God (sin)
E. Sin exists and is describes as something that violates ourselves, others, and God.
F. Sexual assault is a sin.

My conclusion:
I don't know.


Your thoughts?

The concept of an "all loving god" of the kind you describe is utterly incoherent. It would mean that any kind of morality or justice that it espoused would be meaningless.
Reply 5
Original post by londonmyst
I believe that Christ would support and help the sexual assault survivor to come to terms with the attack, so that they can positively move forward with life without having anger or fear from the traumatic events hold them back.

As regards the culprit, the possibilities would depend on whether they had consciously chosen to do evil.
Or were profoundly disturbed, possibly too unwell to be responsible for their actions or even unaware of aware of what had occurred.

If such a being existed they would have prevented the attack ever happening. It's what any rational, sane, caring being would do.
Original post by WADR
If such a being existed they would have prevented the attack ever happening. It's what any rational, sane, caring being would do.

Are you referring to Christ? :confused:

I believe that everything happens for a reason.
Even life experience that involves vicious criminality or a very harsh life lesson can often be very helpful.
For the people who acquire the 1st hand experience, those who find out about it and sometimes those who receive useful advice from someone who witnessed the events or read about it and were then inspired to

People have free will and can choose to do evil.
Many do.
While other people choose to focus on doing something positive with their time and energy.
Reply 7
Original post by WADR
The concept of an "all loving god" of the kind you describe is utterly incoherent. It would mean that any kind of morality or justice that it espoused would be meaningless.

why meaningless?
how would that work, may you give example?
Reply 8
Original post by WADR
If such a being existed they would have prevented the attack ever happening. It's what any rational, sane, caring being would do.


see that's what makes this question so hard that makes me say " I don't know." I don't know how god would respond to this.

in your reaction, all examples I may think of means the free will of the perpetrator or offender is violated. if an all loving god would not violate that person's free will be then how would such a god respond?

in regards to stopping the event from occuring, what options are there that doesn't require violating free will?
what responds may be considered as loving for that person too?
(edited 1 year ago)
I will iterate what I said to you in the other thread.

In the context of religious indoctrination "free will" does not exist.

We can demonstrate this with an example. I hold a gun to your wife's head whom you love dearly. I say that if you don't give me all your money I will shoot your wife.

Now a fundamentalist/purist might try to argue that you DO still have free will in such a situation. You can choose not to give your money and watch your wife die or you can choose to give up your money.

However such notions for me expose a confused mind and one that simply is unable to deal with reality and instead just wants to find excuses to explain away things.

When there is such coercion present, the threat of death, there can not be any meaningful free will. The situation is so constrained as to make the notion of free will an utterly absurd and worthless attribute. I think most rational people would agree with this analysis.

Thus we step back and look at the wider reality of religious doctrine.

In this we have pretty much the same situation. Religion says:

"God gives you free will to do what ever you like"

Oh except that

"If you are evil, don't do exactly as God commands, then you're going to Hell to suffer eternal torture"

Anyone with even the slightest modicum of rational thought and critical thinking can see that this is NOT free will. This is existence under threat of death and worse, eternal punishment. I personally can not understand the state of mind of anyone who believes in an all-loving entity when that entity is prepared to cast his children into an environment of eternal torture. In fact I find the mere notion utterly ridiculous and repugnant. How people can end up thinking this is an acceptable situation is beyond me.

And so to the scenario of sexual assault, which I originally put to the OP.

A 5yr old helpless child is being sexually assaulted by a predator.

If you were the parent of that child and it was totally in your power to stop the assault, no other factors involved, what would you do?

Do you think that any parent that just stood by and watched it happen and didn't take action could possibly be deemed to love that child?

I'd say patently not.

Love demands that you take action to help the innocent child. The assault will damage the child psychologically for the rest of their life. Standing idly by is NOT an expression of love. It's the complete opposite.

It is imo hugely dangerous to entertain notions that such a parent loves their child. If they are not going to protect their child from harm then they are not a decent parent, not a loving parent.

What use then is there in this concept of "love" if it acts in such a way as to allow an innocent child to be sexually assaulted? We have to be realistic. As humans we have to demand that any entity we choose to revere and worship acts in ways that warrant and deserve that worship. Otherwise we are surely deluding ourselves. Otherwise we might just as well revere and worship Hitler and make excuses for the atrocities he perpetrated saying "it was all ok, because he had free will to do it".

If we have no standards, if we have no basic expectation of what love should be and how it is expressed, then how can we possibly talk about love in the context of a supreme being?

Anyone, absolutely anyone we choose to revere and worship should surely lead by example. If a supreme being says "Thou shalt not kill" then is it not utterly reasonable to expect that being to lead by example and to not kill him/herself? Of course it is!!!! The alternative is that what you have there is simply an Authoritarian dictator who commands people not to do things but who spends his time doing them himself.

i.e. "Do as I say, not as I do"

I put it to readers that such a being is not worthy of our reverence or worship.

I don't worship Hitler, or Pol Pott or the Chinese Communist Party. I look at what they do and how they act.

I make the same demands of any God or supreme being that wants us to worship them.

I demand that they lead by example. I demand that they act in ways that deserve our reverence and worship.

Standing idly by whilst they have the power to immediately stop the sexual assault of an innocent child is not an act of love. It is the exact opposite.
It is an act of total indifference to the child. An act of not caring at all one way or the other.

Free will has nothing to do with this, because free will does not really exist. If we had free will, true free will, then we would be free to do anything WITHOUT THREAT or consequence. We don't have that. We are imprisoned and exist within an environment of very finite choices and all choices come with consequences and threats.

No loving parent would ever stand idly by and watch whilst their 5yr old daughter was being sexually assaulted if they had the power to stop it.

That is the very definition of love.

Yet if there exists a God, and he is all-powerful, then all the evidence we see day in, day out, points to the conclusion that he is not loving, that he is totally indifferent to what happens to humans, that he doesn't care if innocents are hurt, tortured or murdered. He stands there watching, doing nothing.

Even if we want to kid ourselves that all such atrocities are somehow just part of some Grand Master Plan that God has, it just doesn't wash.

Love is a human concept. It is a human language term and we all mostly know and agree what that term means and thus what behaviours we expect to see from loving people. We MUST apply those human terms and our understanding of them to any God.

If we are honest with ourselves, brutally honest, then we must conclude that God is not loving. He does not display the traits that humans would expect in regards to love. In which case why should any of us worship him? I wouldn't worship Hitler, nor would I worship a being that was not loving or who showed total indifference to humans.

In religious terms, the sexual predator is likely to be heading for Hell and punishment much later down the line. But if God is resolved to punish that person, then God already believes what he is doing is wrong. In which case why not stop the assault or better still prevent it ever happening in the first place and punish the predator right there and then? You see, any way you look at this you start to realise that there just can not exist an entity that is BOTH all-powerful and all-loving. The evidence is all around us. Every day.
(edited 1 year ago)
Reply 10
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
I will iterate what I said to you in the other thread.

In the context of religious indoctrination "free will" does not exist.

We can demonstrate this with an example. I hold a gun to your wife's head whom you love dearly. I say that if you don't give me all your money I will shoot your wife.

Now a fundamentalist/purist might try to argue that you DO still have free will in such a situation. You can choose not to give your money and watch your wife die or you can choose to give up your money.

However such notions for me expose a confused mind and one that simply is unable to deal with reality and instead just wants to find excuses to explain away things.

When there is such coercion present, the threat of death, there can not be any meaningful free will. The situation is so constrained as to make the notion of free will an utterly absurd and worthless attribute. I think most rational people would agree with this analysis.

Thus we step back and look at the wider reality of religious doctrine.

In this we have pretty much the same situation. Religion says:

"God gives you free will to do what ever you like"

Oh except that

"If you are evil, don't do exactly as God commands, then you're going to Hell to suffer eternal torture"

Anyone with even the slightest modicum of rational thought and critical thinking can see that this is NOT free will. This is existence under threat of death and worse, eternal punishment. I personally can not understand the state of mind of anyone who believes in an all-loving entity when that entity is prepared to cast his children into an environment of eternal torture. In fact I find the mere notion utterly ridiculous and repugnant. How people can end up thinking this is an acceptable situation is beyond me.

And so to the scenario of sexual assault, which I originally put to the OP.

A 5yr old helpless child is being sexually assaulted by a predator.

If you were the parent of that child and it was totally in your power to stop the assault, no other factors involved, what would you do?

Do you think that any parent that just stood by and watched it happen and didn't take action could possibly be deemed to love that child?

I'd say patently not.

Love demands that you take action to help the innocent child. The assault will damage the child psychologically for the rest of their life. Standing idly by is NOT an expression of love. It's the complete opposite.

It is imo hugely dangerous to entertain notions that such a parent loves their child. If they are not going to protect their child from harm then they are not a decent parent, not a loving parent.

What use then is there in this concept of "love" if it acts in such a way as to allow an innocent child to be sexually assaulted? We have to be realistic. As humans we have to demand that any entity we choose to revere and worship acts in ways that warrant and deserve that worship. Otherwise we are surely deluding ourselves. Otherwise we might just as well revere and worship Hitler and make excuses for the atrocities he perpetrated saying "it was all ok, because he had free will to do it".

If we have no standards, if we have no basic expectation of what love should be and how it is expressed, then how can we possibly talk about love in the context of a supreme being?

Anyone, absolutely anyone we choose to revere and worship should surely lead by example. If a supreme being says "Thou shalt not kill" then is it not utterly reasonable to expect that being to lead by example and to not kill him/herself? Of course it is!!!! The alternative is that what you have there is simply an Authoritarian dictator who commands people not to do things but who spends his time doing them himself.

i.e. "Do as I say, not as I do"

I put it to readers that such a being is not worthy of our reverence or worship.

I don't worship Hitler, or Pol Pott or the Chinese Communist Party. I look at what they do and how they act.

I make the same demands of any God or supreme being that wants us to worship them.

I demand that they lead by example. I demand that they act in ways that deserve our reverence and worship.

Standing idly by whilst they have the power to immediately stop the sexual assault of an innocent child is not an act of love. It is the exact opposite.
It is an act of total indifference to the child. An act of not caring at all one way or the other.

Free will has nothing to do with this, because free will does not really exist. If we had free will, true free will, then we would be free to do anything WITHOUT THREAT or consequence. We don't have that. We are imprisoned and exist within an environment of very finite choices and all choices come with consequences and threats.

No loving parent would ever stand idly by and watch whilst their 5yr old daughter was being sexually assaulted if they had the power to stop it.

That is the very definition of love.

Yet if there exists a God, and he is all-powerful, then all the evidence we see day in, day out, points to the conclusion that he is not loving, that he is totally indifferent to what happens to humans, that he doesn't care if innocents are hurt, tortured or murdered. He stands there watching, doing nothing.

Even if we want to kid ourselves that all such atrocities are somehow just part of some Grand Master Plan that God has, it just doesn't wash.

Love is a human concept. It is a human language term and we all mostly know and agree what that term means and thus what behaviours we expect to see from loving people. We MUST apply those human terms and our understanding of them to any God.

If we are honest with ourselves, brutally honest, then we must conclude that God is not loving. He does not display the traits that humans would expect in regards to love. In which case why should any of us worship him? I wouldn't worship Hitler, nor would I worship a being that was not loving or who showed total indifference to humans.

In religious terms, the sexual predator is likely to be heading for Hell and punishment much later down the line. But if God is resolved to punish that person, then God already believes what he is doing is wrong. In which case why not stop the assault or better still prevent it ever happening in the first place and punish the predator right there and then? You see, any way you look at this you start to realise that there just can not exist an entity that is BOTH all-powerful and all-loving. The evidence is all around us. Every day.


1. If you are trying to say that christian theology describes all free will does not exist. You are incorrect. I am specifically catholic which examines the world as having free will. Although some sects may argue otherwise the general concensus states all free will exist.
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/free-will

2. Your demonstration only proves tat free will can be taken away. In other words, violated. Not all people live with a gun to their head at all times. From here an arguement may be pushed that something like a gun controls our choices but many examples will poin towards free will being influenced. By defintion free will can exist whilst being influenced.

3. Any parent would allow ....? we are unable to use human parents of the child to determine what an all loving god (who would be a parent to both victim and agressor) would do in this event because A human parent ignores any love to the one causing harm to that parent's child. The o.p. specifically asks about the love that can be shown to both, not just the victim. In which free will can be considered as variable. Why?
Because all loving god who allows free will would not compromise free will.

4.. Love denands action. Okay. What action can be taken towards the assailagnt that reflects love? What action for the child does not compromise that love? Or are you to argue that the love of an all loving being is conditional?

5. Judgement for heaven or hell. There is a difference between theological teachings as to how jusgement works. However there is still a general concesus that we can draw from which can set a standard. That standard is, we choose at our judgement to be with god or not. This is different than secular opinion where bad people are judged like on earth and sentenced for their crime.

Instead, if we go to hell. We do so becasue we chose to be without god. Which means any person who sins does not live an entire lifetime to do what ever and then hell. Even the predator in the o.p. scenario has a way to salvation. Perhaps humans would live and let die. Humans are not all loving though.
Original post by da_nolo
1. If you are trying to say that christian theology describes all free will does not exist. You are incorrect. I am specifically catholic which examines the world as having free will. Although some sects may argue otherwise the general concensus states all free will exist.
https://www.catholic.com/encyclopedia/free-will


The fact that Catholicism believes free will exists in no way makes it so.

da_nolo

2. Your demonstration only proves tat free will can be taken away. In other words, violated. Not all people live with a gun to their head at all times. From here an arguement may be pushed that something like a gun controls our choices but many examples will poin towards free will being influenced. By defintion free will can exist whilst being influenced.


You've plainly contradicted yourself there. If free will is "influenced" in any way at all then it's patently not free will. The clue is in the term "free". We MUST be totally free to make a choice for it to be free will. Otherwise it's just the illusion of free will. Plus as we have discussed in the other thread, if anyone at all knows with 100% certainty what choice you will make before it is made, then that choice equally can not be free will.

da_nolo

3. Any parent would allow ....? we are unable to use human parents of the child to determine what an all loving god (who would be a parent to both victim and agressor) would do in this event because A human parent ignores any love to the one causing harm to that parent's child. The o.p. specifically asks about the love that can be shown to both, not just the victim. In which free will can be considered as variable. Why?
Because all loving god who allows free will would not compromise free will.


You're diverting again. You're ignoring what I said about love. Love is a human term. Therefore we have our own definition of what love is and what behaviours constitute love. This has nothing at all to do with God. In the human definition of love, we do not let innocent young children get sexually abused by predators. I don;t care what definition of "love" God has. As humans we can only deal with the human term of love and what it means. We do not deem someone to be loving if they stand by doing nothing whilst their child is being sexually abused. It's that simple. This means that in human terms, God is patently not loving. And again the "free will" nonsense holds no water here. There is no free will. There is just the evil of a powerful entity sitting there doing nothing whilst innocent humans suffer and die horribly.

da_nolo

4.. Love denands action. Okay. What action can be taken towards the assailagnt that reflects love? What action for the child does not compromise that love? Or are you to argue that the love of an all loving being is conditional?


The assailant is not engaging in an act of love. The assailant is engaged in an acct of evil, harm and transgression. God allegedly hates evil.
I will repeat again that if a parent loves 2 children and they are fighting, the parent steps in to break it up. This does not compromise their love for either child. In fact it underpins it. God does not do likewise. God stands there idly even though he could act. God stands there and would even let the innocent child actually die. Your stance is I'm afraid unpalatable. You're saying God loves and innocent child so much that he's happy to let them die. He loves an evildoer so much he's happy to let him keep doing evil and to kill an innocent helpless child.

I'm sorry but such an entity is absolutely not worthy of worship. I may as well worship Hitler.

da_nolo

5. Judgement for heaven or hell. There is a difference between theological teachings as to how jusgement works. However there is still a general concesus that we can draw from which can set a standard. That standard is, we choose at our judgement to be with god or not. This is different than secular opinion where bad people are judged like on earth and sentenced for their crime.


There is no Heaven or Hell. Those are allegorical terms from the Bible not literal terms. That fact that religious indoctrination leads people to believe in Heaven and Hell does not make it so. A literal interpretation of the Bible just exposes literally 100s if not 1000s of inconsistencies and contradictions. Such an interpretation is therefore patently wrong. Christians in the main simply compartmentalise all those contradictions and inconsistencies. They can't deal with them because the implication is unpalatable to them. It would undermine their faith and the doctrine they have been indoctrinated with. So they just compartmentalise and ignore them all. The entire ideology of Judgement Day and Lakes of eternal fire and all that nonsense is nothing but psychological fearmongering to engender behaviours in the flock. Fear is needed to pressure people into submission. It's a form of abuse imo.
Reply 12
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
The fact that Catholicism believes free will exists in no way makes it so.



You've plainly contradicted yourself there. If free will is "influenced" in any way at all then it's patently not free will. The clue is in the term "free". We MUST be totally free to make a choice for it to be free will. Otherwise it's just the illusion of free will. Plus as we have discussed in the other thread, if anyone at all knows with 100% certainty what choice you will make before it is made, then that choice equally can not be free will.



You're diverting again. You're ignoring what I said about love. Love is a human term. Therefore we have our own definition of what love is and what behaviours constitute love. This has nothing at all to do with God. In the human definition of love, we do not let innocent young children get sexually abused by predators. I don;t care what definition of "love" God has. As humans we can only deal with the human term of love and what it means. We do not deem someone to be loving if they stand by doing nothing whilst their child is being sexually abused. It's that simple. This means that in human terms, God is patently not loving. And again the "free will" nonsense holds no water here. There is no free will. There is just the evil of a powerful entity sitting there doing nothing whilst innocent humans suffer and die horribly.



The assailant is not engaging in an act of love. The assailant is engaged in an acct of evil, harm and transgression. God allegedly hates evil.
I will repeat again that if a parent loves 2 children and they are fighting, the parent steps in to break it up. This does not compromise their love for either child. In fact it underpins it. God does not do likewise. God stands there idly even though he could act. God stands there and would even let the innocent child actually die. Your stance is I'm afraid unpalatable. You're saying God loves and innocent child so much that he's happy to let them die. He loves an evildoer so much he's happy to let him keep doing evil and to kill an innocent helpless child.

I'm sorry but such an entity is absolutely not worthy of worship. I may as well worship Hitler.



There is no Heaven or Hell. Those are allegorical terms from the Bible not literal terms. That fact that religious indoctrination leads people to believe in Heaven and Hell does not make it so. A literal interpretation of the Bible just exposes literally 100s if not 1000s of inconsistencies and contradictions. Such an interpretation is therefore patently wrong. Christians in the main simply compartmentalise all those contradictions and inconsistencies. They can't deal with them because the implication is unpalatable to them. It would undermine their faith and the doctrine they have been indoctrinated with. So they just compartmentalise and ignore them all. The entire ideology of Judgement Day and Lakes of eternal fire and all that nonsense is nothing but psychological fearmongering to engender behaviours in the flock. Fear is needed to pressure people into submission. It's a form of abuse imo.


. Pilgrim says, "In the context of religious indoctrination "free will" does not exist." Which suggests that religious doctrines and teachings indicate free will does not exist.

I give benefit of doubt to reply with"""
If you are trying to say that christian theology describes all free will does not exist. You are incorrect. I am specifically catholic which examines the world as having free will. Although some sects may argue otherwise the general concensus states (all )free will exist.

Although I do not imply that free will exists becasue "catholicism says so, We should be able to read that the provided link is an example of a religion that identifies free will as existing.

This relates to the o.p. in identifying that if free will exists then god would be aware of it and have a basis for interacting with it ( as in violating it or not).

2. I disagree that any notion of influence must take away the ability to choose against that influence. Like someone giving you only two possible answers to a question where both answers favor that other person instead of yourself. I am influenced to say yes or no but always have a third option if not many more. I am influenced by anger, which may lead to violence , but i still have an ability to manage my emotions to navigate without violence.

The absolute absence of free will means there is absolutely no other option or choic a person could take. Like in your example, the attacker having no option to stop themself or prevent their own attack would have to be absolute.

I say there is no absolute in that regard. Which is not a contradiction. If others use influence in another way, then they use it different.

3. We do not deem someone to be loving if they stand by doing nothing whilst their child is being sexually abused.
we have to take into account conditions or situations where a parent is unable to respond. Like if there is a gun pointed towards a wife's head. Now confronted with a moral delima as to which action to allow: an assault or murder? Hm....in this scenario does this person now loose their ability to love both child and wife?

There are many what if scenarios. The o.p. scenario and questions get ignored if we look only at human responses to the given event.
Like, we are asking about what Jesus would do to show love to both victim and attacker.

Real world conditions get ignored, like natural responses (fight, flight, freeze, ) , to other actors (a second attacker), to other factors like disabilities. I really see no room for a claim that a parent's love is conditioned to an ability they may not have. They dont have free will in the issue but they will loose their love.

Our society's viewpoint on love is based on you choose who you love. This indicates there is free will in the decision. But lets lgnore that like everything else..


4. " I will repeat again that if a parent loves 2 children and they are fighting, the parent steps in to break it up. This does not compromise their love for either child. "

You are not repeating yourself here. You never brought up a response that included two parties, only the one victim. Finally there is real pressure on the o.p. concept. Except free will does exist. You provided no evidence to suggest otherwise. I simply can not believe free will does not exist. Which means an all loving god would not compromise free will.

"You're saying God loves and innocent child so much that he's happy to let them die. He loves an evildoer so much he's happy to let him keep doing evil and to kill an innocent helpless child"
This is a strawman. I never said anything like this and you know it.

As hard as life is to understand and accept we are considering o.p. question. This does include how to disengage an attacker without compromising feee will. I simply do not know the answer to o.p. question in full. Thats ok. Personally i think talking to attacker may be a way.

5. A literal meaning of bible exposes inconsistencies? Well clearly that means the bible is not read only literally. Who takes parables literal? Do you grow mustard seeds?
So much of this part is just incorrect but diverts away from o.p. oh well. Another day.

Have a nice weekend
(edited 1 year ago)
It's become evident in these exchanges that English may not be your first language which might explain why you've misunderstood a number of things I have said. I will endeavour to ty and be clearer to aid your language translations.

da_nolo

Pilgrim says, "In the context of religious indoctrination "free will" does not exist." Which suggests that religious doctrines and teachings indicate free will does not exist.


No that is not at all what I have said or am saying. I am saying that when you consider all that religious doctrine claims, then free will can not possibly be evident.

As per the other thread where we are discussing free will I will outline the simple proof.

A person has a free choice of A, B or C.

Christianity/Catholicism et al would claim that this is free will. You CAN choose A, B or C completely freely.

At the same time these religious doctrines would also claim that there is an Omnipotent God who is also Omniscient (all-knowing) and that therefore God knows the outcome of the choice is going to be A, not B or C before the choice is made.

Simple rational logic therefore dictates that if God is correct then in truth, it is impossible for the person to pick options B or C for if they did, God would be wrong, fallible, not perfect.

Consequently options B and C simply do not exist, there is no such choice, all that exists is the illusion of that choice. God already knows the choice will be A and that by definition means the choice is already constrained and predetermined.

Hence the Christian/Catholic doctrine must be in some way false, flawed and incorrect.

You simply can not have BOTH an omniscient (all-knowing) God AND free will.

The very presences of any all-knowing God totally eradicates the possibility of free will.

You can have one or the other but not both.
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
It's become evident in these exchanges that English may not be your first language which might explain why you've misunderstood a number of things I have said. I will endeavour to ty and be clearer to aid your language translations.



No that is not at all what I have said or am saying. I am saying that when you consider all that religious doctrine claims, then free will can not possibly be evident.

As per the other thread where we are discussing free will I will outline the simple proof.

A person has a free choice of A, B or C.

Christianity/Catholicism et al would claim that this is free will. You CAN choose A, B or C completely freely.

At the same time these religious doctrines would also claim that there is an Omnipotent God who is also Omniscient (all-knowing) and that therefore God knows the outcome of the choice is going to be A, not B or C before the choice is made.

Simple rational logic therefore dictates that if God is correct then in truth, it is impossible for the person to pick options B or C for if they did, God would be wrong, fallible, not perfect.

Consequently options B and C simply do not exist, there is no such choice, all that exists is the illusion of that choice. God already knows the choice will be A and that by definition means the choice is already constrained and predetermined.

Hence the Christian/Catholic doctrine must be in some way false, flawed and incorrect.

You simply can not have BOTH an omniscient (all-knowing) God AND free will.

The very presences of any all-knowing God totally eradicates the possibility of free will.

You can have one or the other but not both.

Are you planning on straying into the predestination debate any time soon? :unsure:

I'm lazy catholic but disagree with both you and the OP as regards opinions on freewill.
I do believe that most adult humans do have at least some freewill in nearly all ordinary situations that don't involve responding to other people's serious criminality or a war zone.
Of course, the freewill choices that directly involve other people or occur in public places within the uk will be generally subject to legal implications and this consideration can limit the scope of freewill without risking arrest.
Original post by londonmyst

I do believe that most adult humans do have at least some freewill in nearly all ordinary situations that don't involve responding to other people's serious criminality or a war zone.


How can there be free will if there also exists a God that knows with 100% certainty what all your choices will be? If God is infallible then all other choice options are not actually options at all.
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
How can there be free will if there also exists a God that knows with 100% certainty what all your choices will be?
If God is infallible then all other choice options are not actually options at all.

God is omniscient but it is still the person who chooses.

In the hypothetical event of a genuine clairvoyant type of person being able to read minds or anticipate future events involving random strangers through the aid of a magic crystal ball/talking horse it does not automatically remove other random people's capacity for free will.
I'm not expressing a personal belief in talking horses that can accurately predict the future or magic crystal balls.
Original post by londonmyst
God is omniscient but it is still the person who chooses.


There's nothing for a person to choose if an omniscient God exists. It's all predetermined in some way.

Londonmyst

In the hypothetical event of a genuine clairvoyant type of person being able to read minds or anticipate future events involving random strangers through the aid of a magic crystal ball/talking horse it does not automatically remove other random people's capacity for free will.
I'm not expressing a personal belief in talking horses that can accurately predict the future or magic crystal balls.


If a future event can be determined before it happens, with 100% certainty, then it is impossible for anything else to happen other than that event.
We're talking about religion's claim of an omniscient and perfect God. If God determines that choice A will be made then accordingly choice B can not be made otherwise God would be fallible, wrong. The person therefore is not choosing anything because the result has already been chosen or determined by some other factor or means which presumably only God knows.

Ask yourself honestly, if God knows that option A will be chosen, is there any way that the person can freely choose option B?

The answer is No if God is perfect.

The answer is Yes if God is fallible or doesn't exist
Original post by PilgrimOfTruth
There's nothing for a person to choose if an omniscient God exists. It's all predetermined in some way.

If a future event can be determined before it happens, with 100% certainty, then it is impossible for anything else to happen other than that event.
We're talking about religion's claim of an omniscient and perfect God. If God determines that choice A will be made then accordingly choice B can not be made otherwise God would be fallible, wrong. The person therefore is not choosing anything because the result has already been chosen or determined by some other factor or means which presumably only God knows.

Ask yourself honestly, if God knows that option A will be chosen, is there any way that the person can freely choose option B?

The answer is No if God is perfect.

The answer is Yes if God is fallible or doesn't exist

I believe that the fact that God knows everything does not mean that every occurance is automatically willed by him or agreed with by him.
Nor part of his master plan for one person, most people, the entire universe.
God does whatever he chooses to do, regardless of how people feel about it or what they are in the habit of chatting with him about.
That's where I part company with the predestination crowd & prosperity preaching bunch that teach anyone who will give them the time of day to 'trust in God or pray regularly' and you will get everything you want/understand the divine plan/have your biggest wish granted.

I chose my breakfast at 3am.
Okay my free will was partially limited.
By my allergies, budget and the fact that I have to drive (meaning I had to stay within the legal limits for booze).
But I made the breakfast decision and am responsible for it.
Not God or one of his angels/ex angels.
Original post by londonmyst
I chose my breakfast at 3am.
Okay my free will was partially limited.
By my allergies, budget and the fact that I have to drive (meaning I had to stay within the legal limits for booze).
But I made the breakfast decision and am responsible for it.
Not God or one of his angels/ex angels.


I sympathise with your view, but the logic is indisputable.

If God already knew you would take your breakfast at 3am and what you would eat, then it was impossible for you to do anything else otherwise you would prove God to be fallible and not omniscient.

We must choose therefore whether to believe in an unseen, unprovable, omniscient God, or to believe in free will. You can't have both.

Quick Reply

Latest

Trending

Trending