4 ms·

free will is one big reason why god would not reveal himself in a universal fashion. free will includes the freedom to reject god. if god were to reveal himself

by em-bee 1y ago

free will is one big reason why god would not reveal himself in a universal fashion. free will includes the freedom to reject god. if god were to reveal himself openly then the freedom to reject him would not exist. we would not have a choice but to believe.

freedomben 1y ago
What about Moses? Or Paul? Or the twelve apostles? Or all the Pharisees who witnessed miracles from Jesus himself?
- em-bee 1y ago
  moses is a prophet or messenger of god just like jesus or mohammad. they are not subject to the same tests. some claim they aren't even human. according to my understanding paul also has been directly chosen by god for a specific mission. i haven't looked at the miracles jesus performed because, since them happening can't be verified and i can't witness them myself they are quite irrelevant for me. i also didn't get the impression that everyone witnessing a miracle was automatically convinced. also the existence of exceptions doesn't negate that the rest of us have that choice.
r2_pilot 1y ago
>free will is one big reason why god would not reveal himself in a universal fashion. Much like how religion posits a soul, you are positing free will despise observing that rocks always fall in accordance with the laws of physics and we have yet to determine any normal way of altering the course of chemistry one jot or tiddle(in fact we build our edifices on these observations, so confident are we). You yourself suggest that the input of "revealed God" removes human free will to disbelieve. In other words, God can't(or didn't for whatever reason) create a human that can experience God without disbelief. Anyway long and short of it, just because you believe in free will doesn't mean it exists, either in your belief structure or in actuality, and Calvinists reject your hypothesis outright.
- em-bee 1y ago
  i don't know how free will is supposed to affect the laws of physics or chemistry. free will is about the choices we can make. that doesn't imply there are no limits to our capacity. nor does having a choice to believe in god or not imply that humans can't experience god without disbelief. on the contrary. that's the whole point. i can believe that the universe is created by god, and that everything i experience is in some way experiencing god, just as i can believe that god doesn't exist, and then, if god does exist, i would experience god without believing that my experience is caused by god. experiencing something doesn't require that i recognize the cause of the experience. as for calvinism, how is that relevant? the existence if some faction believing something that contradicts the belief of others has no bearing on that belief other than that it may raise some questions that are worth investigating. my brief look at that leads me to the conclusion that their view of free will makes no sense to me.
  - r2_pilot 1y ago
    Specifically, free will can't affect chemistry or physics, because what, to you, is free will, to me, is chemical reactions that lead to your body making movements. Since no known process is capable of altering these reactions, ergo you have no free will(defined as the ability to make choices outside of external interference, whatever that even means). Calvinism is relevant because they purport to believe in the same God you do, yet have wildly different and incompatible theories of mind that make no sense to you. As an outside observer all I can say is that either you or they are wrong, and it's likely you both are.
    - freedomben 1y ago
      Agreed, and to expand slightly, we do know that our brains are constructed on top of neurons, and neurons are way too big to be affected by quantum-level events. There's countless literature describing people who have had accidents or illnesses that damage parts of their brain and change personalities (typically without the patient being aware of any change and in most cases being in adamant denial about it), and we can now pinpoint quite precisely what many parts of the brain do. We even have AI that can now "read minds" to an extent based on measuring neural activity. The idea of "free will" is highly suspect given the deterministic nature of our brains. There are still some God of the Gaps arguments that try to save free will, but IMHO you have to really want to save it in order to accept many of those arguments. It's deeply uncomfortable to consider, but our brains are deterministic. This is not my field at all so don't take my word for any of it, but I highly recommend people interested in this read or watch Robert Sapolsky's work. His books "Behave" and "Determined" are utterly fascinating and get very, very deep into this in a way that is challenging but understandable for a non-Neurologist.
jemfinch 1y ago
This contradicts the most common view of Christians throughout history, especially since the simplest reading of Romans 1 expresses exactly the opposite view: "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."
- em-bee 1y ago
  i am not representing a christian viewpoint. but i also do not see the contradiction. the claim that they are without an excuse to reject god does not negate the fact that they have the freedom to reject him. if we didn't have that freedom we could not even have this argument because we would all unquestionably believe in the existence of god.
MisterBastahrd 1y ago
That's not a reason. That's an excuse for why the vigorous handwaving of the religious is insufficient. We have people who are catching measles because they don't believe in measles vaccines, like right freaking now even though we know that the vaccines are safe, effective, and work. Every dimwit who is against their children getting those vaccines was once a child whose parents were intelligent enough to get the vaccinations for them. So no, try again, because that argument is silly.
- em-bee 1y ago
  i don't understand how the freedom to believe or reject god has anything to do with vaccines. what are you trying to say here?
  - MisterBastahrd 1y ago
    Whether or not something exists has zero to do with whether someone accepts that it does. Your free will argument makes absolutely no sense to anyone who actually thinks it through.
    - em-bee 1y ago
      Whether or not something exists has zero to do with whether someone accepts that it does i didn't make such a claim. the existence of god has nothing to do with free will. he either exists, or he doesn't. your or my belief in the existence of god however is governed by the freedom to either believe or reject his existence. if god exists then rejecting him does not make him go away, nor does believing in god make him appear if there is no god. my argument was that free will is the reason why god did not reveal himself in a way that everyone would immediately recognize him without a doubt. it was not an argument about his existence.
      - MisterBastahrd 1y ago
        My freedom to believe or reject the existence of god has nothing to do with revelation. People deny what they plainly see and what can be proven to them all the time. You are making an argument that does not exist in any scripture, and is frankly an apologist's argument regarding the failure of Christendom to reach its prophesized conclusion.

by em-bee 1y ago

freedomben 1y ago

What about Moses? Or Paul? Or the twelve apostles? Or all the Pharisees who witnessed miracles from Jesus himself?

em-bee 1y ago
moses is a prophet or messenger of god just like jesus or mohammad. they are not subject to the same tests. some claim they aren't even human. according to my understanding paul also has been directly chosen by god for a specific mission. i haven't looked at the miracles jesus performed because, since them happening can't be verified and i can't witness them myself they are quite irrelevant for me. i also didn't get the impression that everyone witnessing a miracle was automatically convinced. also the existence of exceptions doesn't negate that the rest of us have that choice.

r2_pilot 1y ago

>free will is one big reason why god would not reveal himself in a universal fashion. Much like how religion posits a soul, you are positing free will despise observing that rocks always fall in accordance with the laws of physics and we have yet to determine any normal way of altering the course of chemistry one jot or tiddle(in fact we build our edifices on these observations, so confident are we). You yourself suggest that the input of "revealed God" removes human free will to disbelieve. In other words, God can't(or didn't for whatever reason) create a human that can experience God without disbelief. Anyway long and short of it, just because you believe in free will doesn't mean it exists, either in your belief structure or in actuality, and Calvinists reject your hypothesis outright.

em-bee 1y ago
i don't know how free will is supposed to affect the laws of physics or chemistry. free will is about the choices we can make. that doesn't imply there are no limits to our capacity. nor does having a choice to believe in god or not imply that humans can't experience god without disbelief. on the contrary. that's the whole point. i can believe that the universe is created by god, and that everything i experience is in some way experiencing god, just as i can believe that god doesn't exist, and then, if god does exist, i would experience god without believing that my experience is caused by god. experiencing something doesn't require that i recognize the cause of the experience. as for calvinism, how is that relevant? the existence if some faction believing something that contradicts the belief of others has no bearing on that belief other than that it may raise some questions that are worth investigating. my brief look at that leads me to the conclusion that their view of free will makes no sense to me.
- r2_pilot 1y ago
  Specifically, free will can't affect chemistry or physics, because what, to you, is free will, to me, is chemical reactions that lead to your body making movements. Since no known process is capable of altering these reactions, ergo you have no free will(defined as the ability to make choices outside of external interference, whatever that even means). Calvinism is relevant because they purport to believe in the same God you do, yet have wildly different and incompatible theories of mind that make no sense to you. As an outside observer all I can say is that either you or they are wrong, and it's likely you both are.
  - freedomben 1y ago
    Agreed, and to expand slightly, we do know that our brains are constructed on top of neurons, and neurons are way too big to be affected by quantum-level events. There's countless literature describing people who have had accidents or illnesses that damage parts of their brain and change personalities (typically without the patient being aware of any change and in most cases being in adamant denial about it), and we can now pinpoint quite precisely what many parts of the brain do. We even have AI that can now "read minds" to an extent based on measuring neural activity. The idea of "free will" is highly suspect given the deterministic nature of our brains. There are still some God of the Gaps arguments that try to save free will, but IMHO you have to really want to save it in order to accept many of those arguments. It's deeply uncomfortable to consider, but our brains are deterministic. This is not my field at all so don't take my word for any of it, but I highly recommend people interested in this read or watch Robert Sapolsky's work. His books "Behave" and "Determined" are utterly fascinating and get very, very deep into this in a way that is challenging but understandable for a non-Neurologist.

jemfinch 1y ago

This contradicts the most common view of Christians throughout history, especially since the simplest reading of Romans 1 expresses exactly the opposite view: "Ever since the creation of the world his invisible nature, namely, his eternal power and deity, has been clearly perceived in the things that have been made. So they are without excuse."

em-bee 1y ago
i am not representing a christian viewpoint. but i also do not see the contradiction. the claim that they are without an excuse to reject god does not negate the fact that they have the freedom to reject him. if we didn't have that freedom we could not even have this argument because we would all unquestionably believe in the existence of god.

MisterBastahrd 1y ago

That's not a reason. That's an excuse for why the vigorous handwaving of the religious is insufficient. We have people who are catching measles because they don't believe in measles vaccines, like right freaking now even though we know that the vaccines are safe, effective, and work. Every dimwit who is against their children getting those vaccines was once a child whose parents were intelligent enough to get the vaccinations for them. So no, try again, because that argument is silly.

em-bee 1y ago
i don't understand how the freedom to believe or reject god has anything to do with vaccines. what are you trying to say here?
- MisterBastahrd 1y ago
  Whether or not something exists has zero to do with whether someone accepts that it does. Your free will argument makes absolutely no sense to anyone who actually thinks it through.
  - em-bee 1y ago
    Whether or not something exists has zero to do with whether someone accepts that it does i didn't make such a claim. the existence of god has nothing to do with free will. he either exists, or he doesn't. your or my belief in the existence of god however is governed by the freedom to either believe or reject his existence. if god exists then rejecting him does not make him go away, nor does believing in god make him appear if there is no god. my argument was that free will is the reason why god did not reveal himself in a way that everyone would immediately recognize him without a doubt. it was not an argument about his existence.
    - MisterBastahrd 1y ago
      My freedom to believe or reject the existence of god has nothing to do with revelation. People deny what they plainly see and what can be proven to them all the time. You are making an argument that does not exist in any scripture, and is frankly an apologist's argument regarding the failure of Christendom to reach its prophesized conclusion.