Theology III

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Speaking of which, this new thread doesn't get you off the hook for answering all my points in the last one.

Nor does it let you off the hook from responding to my responses in post 986 . I already responded to about half your post. I'll take the rest now.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Beings that have no independent control are not an audience. Would you consider Harry, Ron and Hermione part of Rowling's "audience"?

They certainly would be audience, with a very deep internal look at her book, if they were alive. And life vs. non-life is the major failing of the book analogy.

And you don't have to have independent control to be an audience. I might grab you by the wrists and physically force you to watch a movie, and that doesn't stop you being an audience member, even if you are an unwilling one. But God doesn't grab anyone by the wrists and force them to watch the movie- people do what they want. In that way, this comparison falls short.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

God, in your explanation, isn't "developing" anything at all. He creates good personalities and evil personalities and watches them do exactly what he expects them to do. There is no "developing".

As they do what he expects them to do, they develop. That process is developing. Just because God planned how it would develop doesn't mean it doesn't develop . Are you saying that for anything to develop, it has to be free of anyone's control? That's completely contrary to what we observe in life.

Film develops while under control. Buildings develop while under human control. We plan it out beforehand, put our resources together and build it, but it develops. Of course humans can't develop humans, although they certainly can influence them a lot, but God is far above us, and his developing us doesn't mean we don't develop. The result of God's planning develops in fulfillment of that plan. There is no contradiction between God's planning and acting and development.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Of course you're right that in the final analysis, God writes it all. However, humans still get to act freely according to their personalities in the circumstances they're in, and can change their circumstances through their wills, whatever their will may happen to be, and it will also be God's. One thing that no character should be able to complain of to the author in a good book is, "I wanted to do this one thing, but you intervened, messed with my character and prevented me doing what I would naturally do." Good authors create characters who behave in exactly the ways that are natural for them to behave in. Poor writers tamper with the personalities of their characters in unrealistic ways.


The only reason you can talk about what is "natural" and "unnatural" or "realistic" and "unrealistic" is because the author is not also writing your story. Whatever Rowling chooses to write about Harry, Ron and Hermione is perfectly "natural" from their point of view because Rowling created them.

It may or may not be natural from your point of view only because Rowling did not create, and thus does not control, your personality.

I don't understand what you're trying to say, here.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
Characters do have some control over what happens around them and over what choices they make, but God has complete control. Their control and God's control don't contradict one another- that's my point.


They do contradict one another. If someone has complete control, by definition of the word complete, no one else has any control. The best you can give them is the perception of control if they do not completely see or understand the being that has complete control.

The concept is so basic, I feel silly even having to explain it.

I have already responded to this many times.

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Quote:
Originally Posted by Lief Erikson
I define free will differently than you do, because I think the definition you are arguing for (without believing in it), and which I have commonly heard from other people, makes no sense.


What you are doing is calling a lack of free will, "free will". I could argue to the end of my days that black is really white, but no one is going to believe me.

Let me ask you a question: do you think god has free will in the common definition of the term (i.e. he can do whatever he wants with no outside control)?

Like us, he is bound to fulfill his personality, to be himself, just as we are.

I may respond to the rest later. I have to go now.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by Nurvingiel

Now, I'm not picking on the Catholic Church, but I am curious as to why nuns can't practice Mass.

Because nuns have not been ordained, for the same reasons that monks cannot say the Mass, unless they are also priests. Traditional Christian (not just Catholic) theology states that Christ instituted the sacrament/sacramental of Holy Orders, in order to allow the Last Supper to continue to be celebrated through the ages; not just any one can celebrate the sacrament, but only an ordained minister, according to Eastern Orthodox, Oriental Orthodox, Nestorian, and Catholic doctrine, not to mention many Lutherans and the Anglican Communion. Nuns and monks live a consecrated life, but they are consecrated for this purpose; rather, their consecration is ordered towards the end of a communal life of poverty, prayer, and obedience.

BTW, nuns are not peculiar to the Catholic Church. The Orthodox have them as well, as do the Anglicans and some Lutherans; I understand that there is also a Presbyterian monastic community out there somewhere. Basically, any community which has any deep sense of continuity with the Christian church of ages past will have monastics.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

I have already responded to this many times.

I'd argue that, but since this is the heart of it, we can drop the rest.

Explain to me one more time, as simply as possible, how one being can have complete control over another being and yet, at the same time, that being retains at least some control.

And let me make clear, I have no issue if you wish to theorize that god has complete control over us. That's perfectly valid. As I said before, I also think the universe is deterministic at it's heart, I just don't put a "god" behind it.

The problem comes in when a) you claim we still have some freedom and, b) you claim we still have some responsibility.

The only way you can logically justify those claims is by saying that, due to our limited knowledge, we perceive that we have some freedom and some responsibility and thus act accordingly. (This is perfectly in line with determination, since our perceptions determine our actions.)

But, since god does not have those same limitations (his perception of reality is perfect), it would be silly for him to make those same claims, since he knows they are not true.

[Gwaimir Windgem]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

While that is certainly the majority opinion. Not all Christians do. Some sects don't even believe that Jesus was divine, they just think that god worked through the human Jesus.

That's kind of inverted; you're saying 'Not all Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God; some sects don't even believe that he was divine', which implies that the latter idea is more rare. However, a number of people believe Jesus was the Son of God without believing that he was divine. Belief in his divinity is superadded to believe in him as son of God. But anyway, the general consensus is that the word 'Christian' applies to those who consider him to have been the son of God, at the very least. Any attempt to say otherwise is nothing other than an attempt to subvert words to a different meaning than that which is usually given them, which is an assault on language, the basis of human communication.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

Any attempt to say otherwise is nothing other than an attempt to subvert words to a different meaning than that which is usually given them, which is an assault on language, the basis of human communication.

An assault on the basis of human communication, no less.

People on this topic are really wack. Everyone seems to have the list of who is a Christian, and what Christians believe. Any attempt to broaden that understanding is An assault on language, or other heavily loaded terms. Couldn't just be a difference of opinion, or nuffin'.

Add this attitude to my list of 'Reasons i'm grateful i ain't got God's job.'

[Gwaimir Windgem]

It's not a question of God's job. It's simply this: the meaning of a word comes from general consensus. If everyone were always tweaking words to make them mean what they wanted them to mean, then we wouldn't be able to understand one another. It is our duty, nay, our privilege () as beings capable of communicating with each other through language to not attempt to pervert language. If it were my opinion that the word elephant meant this:



I would simply be wrong. Why? Because the meaning of words comes from societal convention, and societal convention dictates otherwise. Now, I'm not exactly a fan of societal convention over all, but it is necessary to communicate through words.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

It's not a question of God's job. It's simply this: the meaning of a word comes from general consensus. If everyone were always tweaking words to make them mean what they wanted them to mean, then we wouldn't be able to understand one another. It is our duty, nay, our privilege () as beings capable of communicating with each other through language to not attempt to pervert language. If it were my opinion that the word elephant meant this:



I would simply be wrong. Why? Because the meaning of words comes from societal convention, and societal convention dictates otherwise. Now, I'm not exactly a fan of societal convention over all, but it is necessary to communicate through words.

approach to language a lot of places, but it's preeeety funny on a Tolkien board. The word "goblin" went through the full-on tesseract during JRRT's interaction with it. He didn't wait for consensus, even with himself.

If you told me the pictured thing was an elephant, I'd travel along with you to see what point you wanted to make. If I didn't get it when we arrived, I might ask whether changing that definition helped. Probably it wouldn't. But, as a user of English, I'm already accustomed to seeing "elephant" used to describe at least 3 different species of living pachyderms, a kind of shrew, a variety of garlic, a baseball team, a type of jumble sale, a political party, and a kind of plant grown for its foliage, as well as an unpleasant reality no one wants to discuss.

But this isn't about 'shared consensus'. This is specific to definitions around this debate, and it reflects a kind of rigidity that isn't grammatical. Today's Tarot card is the Hierophant.

That's why I don't want God's job.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

An assault on the basis of human communication, no less.

Next thing you know, I'll be the root of all that is evil.

While I agree with GW on the hippo, I think putting religion and consensus in the same light is an oxymoron.

Plus, I'm with Humpty Dumpty on this one:

"When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said in rather a scornful tone. "It means just what I choose it to mean - neither more or less."
"The question is," said Alice, "whether you can make words mean so many different things."
"The question is," said Humpty Dumpty, "which is to be master - that's all."

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

I'd argue that, but since this is the heart of it, we can drop the rest.

Explain to me one more time, as simply as possible, how one being can have complete control over another being and yet, at the same time, that being retains at least some control.

I guess part of the problem I'm having in getting my ideas across is in our assumptions about control and what it is to make choices. I guess that if I were to define Free Will the way you are, I'd have to say that according to my view, no one has Free Will. Not even God. The way you're defining it, it means that we have the ability to choose between multiple options. I don't think that that definition makes sense at all, however, and doesn't describe a real kind of freedom. That statement may sound weird, but I'll try again to explain it.

First of all, how do we make decisions? Different people make different decisions because they have different personalities. Every decision they make comes from within them, from their genetic make-up, from the nature of their souls, and from environmental influences. They make decisions based on who they are, in our everyday, real world experience.

But this interpretation of real-world experience would suggest that we are controlled by who we are. So let's look at the alternative, that our personalities only present us with a set of options for us to choose between. But what, then, is left that chooses between the options, and on what does it make its decision? We've discounted that the natures of our souls, environmental influences and genetic make-up select the option we'll take. What and who we are, according to Free Will, doesn't determine the decision, for otherwise we wouldn't be "free." But if who we are doesn't determine how we will behave, if our decisions don't come from who we are, then "free will" is logically merely the freedom to be a non-entity. For if the decision doesn't come from us, then we aren't making our own decisions, and rather some kind of random-selection service makes our decisions.

So we can't have "control" in the sense of choosing between multiple options. Because only one of the options is most in accord with who you are and that is the one you will pick. If you really had multiple options that you could choose between, then you wouldn't be you, because it wouldn't be you choosing (for all that makes up you, we have already said doesn't determine the decision), and all that is "you" is only one influence on some strange process that is foreign to you as you know yourself, and is making the decision for you. Or the selection between "choices" is random chance.

That's the logical conclusion of "Free Will" according to the common definition, in my opinion. It's an intrinsically logically flawed idea.

The same goes for God's "Free Will." He only has the freedom to be himself, just as we do, and doesn't have a set of options to choose from. He must make the choice according to his personality, just as we must, which means he is just being himself, as we are. And I say that on a lower level definition of freedom (but still more reasonable than the logical absurdity that is modern "Free Will"), this is freedom: to be able to be ourselves. To freely behave in accord with our personalities and with who we are.

God's "control" and "predestination" do not limit us according to this definition of freedom. Sure, we do not have multiple options, so we don't have the modern conception of Free Will. We don't have this concept that modern people find desirable, because they haven't thought it through to its logical conclusion: randomization. The ultimate uncaring. We have the freedom to be ourselves though, and since ourselves are all that we are, where's the slavery in that?

According to his personality and his freedom (by my low level definition of the word), God has created us and predestined us to do his will. However, that will doesn't keep us from being who we are, so we still have complete freedom- equal freedom to that which God has. We can be ourselves, and God can be himself, both predestined and both free.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Gwaimir Windgem

That's kind of inverted; you're saying 'Not all Christians believe Jesus was the Son of God; some sects don't even believe that he was divine', which implies that the latter idea is more rare. However, a number of people believe Jesus was the Son of God without believing that he was divine. Belief in his divinity is superadded to believe in him as son of God. But anyway, the general consensus is that the word 'Christian' applies to those who consider him to have been the son of God, at the very least. Any attempt to say otherwise is nothing other than an attempt to subvert words to a different meaning than that which is usually given them, which is an assault on language, the basis of human communication.

Well said.

[Tuinor]

Hello, name's Tuinor. I've been monitoring these debates over theology recently, and I'd like to state my beliefs concerning this matter on "Free Will".
I don't know if what I believe is true. I'd hope that if someone knows it isn't that they would tell me so, because I believe that Truth is God, and that to know Truth is to know God. So, like I said, this is just what I believe.
I believe that God gave mankind free will. The reason why I can believe this and also believe that everything is in His control is because He knows us. Down to every last decision we may make in any concievable circumstance, He knows us. That's why He chose in the beginning to make Adam the first man, and Eve the first woman. He knew what decisions they'd make, as well as any decision any other human including you or I would make if we were in their position. That's whay He chose them. He saw the results of every other choice before they were even made, and He knew that Adam and Eve were the best. The same call could be made for the angels, including Lucifer. He knows everything. So He created us, gave us free will even though He knew what we would do with it. That's why I can accept that God exists despite all the evil going on. He gives everyone the ability to choose. Think of this somewhat like a pile of wood ready to be lit on fire. The fire-starter sees every angle and (if he's got a lot of experience or know-how) he finds the spot where the fire will grow the easiest and he starts it there. Now, God knows a lot more than the fire-maker, it that He knows exactly which particles will combust with every passing second even before He lights it. Thus He builds His fire pile, creation, and lights in the best possible spot. His fire is free will, and it is in all of us. True, we are each affected by the decisions others make, as well as they are affected by ones we make, but that is simply the way a fire works. The tongues flicker and jump from one place to another and the fire grows as it consumes more and more until the entire pile is blazing. Heat is the energy of motion, the energy of choice as it jumps from one place to another affecting everything it touches. No human mind can ever comprehend how many molecules the heat affects; nonetheless, they are affected, and the heat they give off affects others. It's beyond any of us, yet God knows and understands all of it. He started it in the beginning, and like a good fire builder when He sees it dying He stirrs it exposing new areas to the flame, and He adds new fuel to the fire. He works in creation, and He knows what He's doing and the effect it will have. That's how He is in control. Knowledge is power, after all. Yet, He does not make our choices for us, we are given that responsibitity. That shows how much He loves us. He gives us free will. This is what I believe.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Tuinor

Hello, name's Tuinor. I've been monitoring these debates over theology recently, and I'd like to state my beliefs concerning this matter on "Free Will".

Good to meet you!

Originally Posted by Tuinor

I don't know if what I believe is true. I'd hope that if someone knows it isn't that they would tell me so, because I believe that Truth is God, and that to know Truth is to know God. So, like I said, this is just what I believe.

I agree with you, here.

Originally Posted by Tuinor

He saw the results of every other choice before they were even made, and He knew that Adam and Eve were the best. The same call could be made for the angels, including Lucifer. He knows everything. So He created us, gave us free will even though He knew what we would do with it. That's why I can accept that God exists despite all the evil going on. He gives everyone the ability to choose.

I have one question. Do you think another acceptable reason for God either planning that evil temporarily exist, or merely allowing it to exist, would be that people learn from pain and evil?

For instance, we wouldn't in an experiential way know what mercy means if we don't know what mercilessness is. And if we haven't experienced injustice, we don't know so well what justice is. If we haven't experienced sin, we wouldn't feel grace. So sin, evil and pain actually can produce good results, for without them, we wouldn't have as much depth as creations, or the ability to know God so well.

The scripture says that a servant who is forgiven little loves little, while a servant who is forgiven much loves much. So couldn't one say that God's allowing or planning that evil temporarily exist would be valid, so that we can learn more about God and goodness (to me, the two are one and the same) through having experienced it?

What are your thoughts on this?

Originally Posted by Tuinor

Think of this somewhat like a pile of wood ready to be lit on fire. The fire-starter sees every angle and (if he's got a lot of experience or know-how) he finds the spot where the fire will grow the easiest and he starts it there. Now, God knows a lot more than the fire-maker, it that He knows exactly which particles will combust with every passing second even before He lights it. Thus He builds His fire pile, creation, and lights in the best possible spot. His fire is free will, and it is in all of us. True, we are each affected by the decisions others make, as well as they are affected by ones we make, but that is simply the way a fire works. The tongues flicker and jump from one place to another and the fire grows as it consumes more and more until the entire pile is blazing. Heat is the energy of motion, the energy of choice as it jumps from one place to another affecting everything it touches. No human mind can ever comprehend how many molecules the heat affects; nonetheless, they are affected, and the heat they give off affects others. It's beyond any of us, yet God knows and understands all of it. He started it in the beginning, and like a good fire builder when He sees it dying He stirrs it exposing new areas to the flame, and He adds new fuel to the fire. He works in creation, and He knows what He's doing and the effect it will have. That's how He is in control. Knowledge is power, after all. Yet, He does not make our choices for us, we are given that responsibitity. That shows how much He loves us. He gives us free will. This is what I believe.

I respect your belief very much. As I said in my above post, I think that the reasoning behind Free Will doesn't actually logically work, when carefully examined. But I do respect your belief for sure, and that was quite a cool analogy!

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

So we can't have "control" in the sense of choosing between multiple options. Because only one of the options is most in accord with who you are and that is the one you will pick.

I guess there's the key point, because I disagree. I think there are multiple options that would be consistent with who you are, in most cases at least, and that there is no requirement to choose the one "most" in accord with who you are. I think people develop and grow, and that therefore their personality is not some fixed thing that can simply be compared to a set of options and have whichever one is "most in accord" automatically chosen. Rather, we have a Free choice between the multiple options that are in accord to varying degrees, and making that choice affects our personality's growth going forward. Personality isn't an algorithm, but more like a quantum state.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

God's "control" and "predestination" do not limit us according to this definition of freedom. Sure, we do not have multiple options, so we don't have the modern conception of Free Will. We don't have this concept that modern people find desirable, because they haven't thought it through to its logical conclusion: randomization. The ultimate uncaring. We have the freedom to be ourselves though, and since ourselves are all that we are, where's the slavery in that?

I would still call that mearly the perception of free will, though there is nothing wrong with that. It's a valid definition of reality, whether there is a god or there isn't.

That said, there is still room for a true free will definition of reality as well. For example, there is if one assumes that god is extremely powerful and extremely knowledgeable, but not completely so. And by this I don't mean so much that there are things god does not know, just that there are things that can't be known because god created them that way.

Looking back to quantum mechanics, we see the possibility of randomization at the most basic level. If one assumes that god created this factor in the universe, something even he can't completely control, yet knows how to influence, there is room for both his caring and our free will.

It's like when parents have a child. They have near absolute control over this child's upbringing, and know that certain actions will lead to that child developing in certain ways. But, for any of us who have had multiple children, we realize that there is a certain random factor that, while shapeable, is not 100% controllable.

In fact, one could say that this element of unknown is where loving and caring stem from. If we knew exactly how our children would turn out, we wouldn't worry about them, or do any more or less than was required by our foreknowledge. But it's that very element of randomess that must be shaped which keeps us so intent upon our children's well-being.

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

I guess there's the key point, because I disagree. I think there are multiple options that would be consistent with who you are, in most cases at least, and that there is no requirement to choose the one "most" in accord with who you are. I think people develop and grow, and that therefore their personality is not some fixed thing that can simply be compared to a set of options and have whichever one is "most in accord" automatically chosen.

I agree with you that personality is not fixed and can change. That, I think, is why there is a point to God speaking to us and urging us to do certain things. Because then the experience of having heard his message becomes part of our experience, our memory, and thus enters us, and as it has entered us, becoming a part of who we are (to what extent depends on our predispositions, experience, environment, perhaps our genetic-make-up, our upbringing, personalities, etc.), it could impact our decision-making.

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

Rather, we have a Free choice between the multiple options that are in accord to varying degrees, and making that choice affects our personality's growth going forward. Personality isn't an algorithm, but more like a quantum state.

What part of us, in your opinion, selects from the set of options, and how does it make its decision?

Back when I believed in Free Will, I always said that it was the soul, and that genetics, environment, personality and all the rest are all just influences on the decision-making process that did not determine the decision. But if they don't determine the decision in any given choice, what does?

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

Looking back to quantum mechanics, we see the possibility of randomization at the most basic level. If one assumes that god created this factor in the universe, something even he can't completely control, yet knows how to influence, there is room for both his caring and our free will.

It's like when parents have a child. They have near absolute control over this child's upbringing, and know that certain actions will lead to that child developing in certain ways. But, for any of us who have had multiple children, we realize that there is a certain random factor that, while shapeable, is not 100% controllable.

In fact, one could say that this element of unknown is where loving and caring stem from. If we knew exactly how our children would turn out, we wouldn't worry about them, or do any more or less than was required by our foreknowledge. But it's that very element of randomess that must be shaped which keeps us so intent upon our children's well-being.

If knowing our children fully makes us bored of them, or knowing them very well makes them more boring to us, we're the ones who are boring.

Randomization is not caring. It shows complete uncaring, utter indifference to the outcome. Which doesn't make sense to me, as part of the nature of a God of Love.

You also are trying to assume a God with limited knowledge and power. That's fine for you to do, of course, but it isn't Christianity, so it doesn't affect me and what I will believe, though I may still discuss it with you just for the sake of the intellectual pursuit .

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

That said, there is still room for a true free will definition of reality as well.

You seem to have been admitting your last message that randomization is the logical conclusion of the Free Will position. I can't see why you call it a true definition of "Free Will," though, still. For if your decisions are selected randomly, you sure don't make them, and hence you have no power at all over any of your decisions.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Randomization is not caring. It shows complete uncaring, utter indifference to the outcome. Which doesn't make sense to me, as part of the nature of a God of Love.

You can't argue this without being sure of the purpose of Creation.

Do you know the purpose of Creation, Leif?

I don't know why you couldn't assume a God who, just for the novelty, decided to play solitaire without checking the deck first.

If you believe God took on human flesh, He clearly was able to accept limitations in service of His ends, whatever they may be. Why not suppose He accepted limits on His foreknowledge, or His power?

Or maybe the creation of Mankind (as you seem to believe that humans are subject to different rules of play than other creatures) was just an elaborate bet...in the style of the trials of Job, but much larger scale.

The whole Bible is full of God testing people. Pretty malicious behavior if He already knew/was controlling the outcome.

[Rían]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Randomization is not caring. It shows complete uncaring, utter indifference to the outcome. Which doesn't make sense to me, as part of the nature of a God of Love.

I agree with sis here, in that I disagree with this statement. I think God made the universe, gave it certain parameters, and then let it go and said, "Surprise me!" But as a Chris Rice song says, "Love has the final move." GTG!

[Lief Erikson]

Originally Posted by RÃ*an

I agree with sis here, in that I disagree with this statement. I think God made the universe, gave it certain parameters, and then let it go and said, "Surprise me!" But as a Chris Rice song says, "Love has the final move." GTG!

Since God is all-knowing, we couldn't possibly surprise him, and since he created without any surprises left in store, he is fully responsible for the way everything has turned out. He chose that all would exist this way, by creating with the knowledge of what would result. So even Free Will, by assuming an omniscient God, comes out to a result which is very, very much like that of predestination.

I'd like it if you responded to my post 29 . I know it wasn't addressed to you, but I'm curious to hear your thoughts on my critique, there, of the modern concept of Free Will.

[Butterbeer]

... wonder what BJ thinks?

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

If knowing our children fully makes us bored of them, or knowing them very well makes them more boring to us, we're the ones who are boring.

Not if it's about the journey as opposed to about the destination.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

Randomization is not caring. It shows complete uncaring, utter indifference to the outcome. Which doesn't make sense to me, as part of the nature of a God of Love.

I'm not talking about complete randomization here, just an element of randomization. Maybe he wanted to take humans a step further than the other animals he created by giving them the ability to act in random ways so that he could then see if he could shape them as they developed.

As I mentioned before, a big part of love is co-dependence and mutual appreciation, and that can only truely develop between minds which must discover in order to understand one another. It's the difference between loving a story you wrote and loving your mother or father.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You also are trying to assume a God with limited knowledge and power. That's fine for you to do, of course, but it isn't Christianity, so it doesn't affect me and what I will believe, though I may still discuss it with you just for the sake of the intellectual pursuit .

Limits which he himself set in order to develop something greater than he had ever developed before.

While I may be limiting god's knowledge (though I'd frame it as god setting limits about what he wishes to be able know about some of his creations), you are limiting his power by implying that he can not create a being which can act in even the smallest way free from god's influence.

Originally Posted by Lief Erikson

You seem to have been admitting your last message that randomization is the logical conclusion of the Free Will position. I can't see why you call it a true definition of "Free Will," though, still. For if your decisions are selected randomly, you sure don't make them, and hence you have no power at all over any of your decisions.

Selected randomly by you. I'm not saying that a decision presents itself and a twelve-sided die rolls in your head. I'm saying that, while all sorts of factors enter into the decision-making process (biology, experience, etc.), the final flip of the switch can go either way. Those other factors may greatly favor one course of action, but there is a random factor that can sometimes overrule all that "predestination".

Read this article if you get the chance (it's short ).