If people have free will is God still omnipotent?
no, we don't though
>>1295934
>we
>>1295936
/end thread
>>1295922
Yes
>>1295959
How senpai? If I make a truly free decision , then god had no power over my act. If God has any power or influence over my act, it wasn't free. Enlighten me por favor
>>1296001
I believe the argument would be 'he does have power over your decisions fundamentally he just chooses not to interfere'
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=gs_gY1K1AMU
This might help
>>1295922
The concept of "free will" is nonsensical to begin with.
For that matter, omnipotence leads to self-contradictions, so it's nonsense too.
"Are these bullshit things compatible?" Theology, everyone.
>>1296047
I wasn't really asking whether free will is right or not (I don't believe in it), but Christians do so I was interested in how they navigate that question
>>1295922
Er, those two don't conflict.
Neither does our free will to choose from among our available options and God's foreknowledge of our choice.
If you don't believe that, tell me when God told you what He knew about your choices, and tell me how God made His knowledge bear down upon your ability to choose.
>>1295922
Yes, I don't know how those two things would conflict
>>1296076
The hell are you rambling about?
You can choose to go fight God, and then God will kill you and cast your soul into hell.
Was your free will denied at any point therein?
No, any confusion in this matter is ignorance of the difference between the express will of God, that which He says He will do, and nothing can stop Him, and the permissive will of God, wherein He retreats into His sovereignty to allow us to express the sovereignty He has given to us.
To use.
To choose.
>>1296078
God created the universe and god is omnipotent, therefore everything that happens is necessarily god's will, leaving no room for man's will.
>>1296101
>rambling
pretty short ramble senpai
>>1296101
Weighted options =/= freedom
Freedom is a stupid concept anyways, it defies any kind of determinism other than that of the self.
>>1295922
ITT:
theists desperately dodging fundamental rules of logic
I talked about this with a dude for about 16h total. His final statement was that its "black out zones" where god robs himself of the knowledge of whats happening there or will happen there, so he can have overall plans but have free will in the meantime.
I pointed out that this solves nothing, since he theoreticly still could know, which means its still completely deterministic. At which point he stopped talking to me.
>omnipotent
>can literally do anything
>"b-b-but how can he do two contradictory things at once"
cause he's omnipotent bruh
>>1296110
Do you think that because God is omnipotent he HAS to do everything possible that requires power?
You can walk, yes? Do you HAVE to walk everywhere that you can walk?
>>1296151
Choosing among weighted options is freedom, yes.
You are not free to jump to the moon. And you get to weight your options as you see fit.
>>1295922
Mr. Spinoza, you are needed in an omnipotence thread. Mr. Spinoza, please report to /his/ for a Special Snowflake discussion,
>free will
>god
Spooky thread, OP
>>1295922
If god has a plan there can be no free will.
>>1296896
Not even that.
If it is in principle possible to know what people will choose and how things will turn out, there can be no free will. IT would mean its a deterministic system.
And if god is omnipotent he is also omniscient. God knew everything when deciding on making this particular universe.
He could have made one where you chose differently, but didn't.
So he implicitely decided for you, and reality is just a play from a book already written.
Sigh, this thread again...
>>1296896
Incorrect, but ok
>>1297439
Whats incorrect about it.
The post beow me even elaborated on it.
I've discussed this a number of times in other subjects, the nature of including "all" or "none" in a sentence. You can't put infinity in a logical statement and expect to receive a rational product, the answer is always going to be "empty set". Empty set is like a bag with no contents; the statement exists so the bag exists but there is no answer, nothing in the bag. We can make word games like this with all kinds of things, from set theory to hypotheticals with undefined parameters, i.e. how many angels dance on the head of a pin, with no defining parameter of "angel".
So one can choose to believe God is omnipotent, omniscient, and that exists separately from "us", as another thing without actual value. If we place value on free will, if we say this exists and is quantifiable, definable, then we cannot put it in the same expression as "that which has no value" or we get another word game.
So if you ascribe this non-value value to God, you have to leave that to God, not mix it with the affairs of men, not try to make one affect the other, not try to make something equate. If I make a decision inside omniscience, at what point did I even think, or if I throw a brick into infinity, where did I first stand?
You can believe both. You must simply hold each separately, and never do the two interact.
>>1295934
I want the Calvinists to leave REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
>>1297475
Isn't this just doublethink?
>>1297484
No, it's an illustration of "word games". I can play them all day. Give a set of whole numbers greater than eight but less than seven. See, I just said that, this exists as a sentence, but it has no answer. I have an empty set of numbers, but it's not "nothing". It will happen every time you include "all" or "none" while also trying to include a part with "value".
>>1297484
In doublethink, you're unaware of what you did and how it's contradictory. This is an explanation "what went wrong" and how to avoid it. One can still accept God's "all powerful nature" and "put it over there", not try to make it make sense, and that's fine, as long as you don't let it, make it, trip you up when you're trying to come to a verifiable conclusion.
>>1296071
If God has perfect foreknowledge of a choice, it is impossible for that choice to not be made. Thus, not free: the outcome was inevitable from the birth of the universe.
Additionally, if we accept that God created all things (this includes souls if we accept the existence of such a thing) with perfect foreknowledge of their future interactions, the experiences and situations that each person is exposed to combined with their genetics determine their personality and thus their desicion making. If God creates someone with a certain level of adrenaline and places them in a situation where in twenty years they will encounter a stressful situation and overreact due to the adrenaline, did they really "freely choose" to react? When God could have easily chosen to create them with lower adrenaline levels or placed them into different situations?
>>1297523
Incidentally, this is also the important factor, rule of thumb, in theoretical physics, that , "any answer which ends in infinity is inherently bad". You'll think yourself into a hole, it's not productive, you're not getting work done.
Determinism means the experiment into existence is essentially pointless. The smaller the focus on something, as in from the atom level or neuron level (which is why brains aren't predictable), the more sheer probabilities are involved and the more it actually doesn't matter if things resolve up or down.
As you go larger, from volcanoes erupting to the probable cosmological ending and beginning of the universe, the less things are probabilistic and more likely that factors will cascade, snowball and asymptote towards a single solution.
The saying:
>when the avalanche begins it's too late for the pebbles to vote
Remains true here.
Tl;dr, some things are fate, most things are not, including your actions. Enjoy your free will, it's part of why God brought you here.
You don't reach God by thinking, any more than you reach infinity by counting. Four billion is no closer to infinity than four. The mortal is not to reach up to the divine, but the divine will reach down to the mortal to reveal its existence. That, to us, is the Holy Bible.
>>1297565
>appeal to authority
I'd argue thinking and attempting to understand the natural world is exactly the path to God and anyone who helps you, who writes non fiction books or authors informational videos, are the true prophets even when they're atheists. The bible is just an attempt to preserve a culture so old it likely dates to when the Sahara was an expansive steppe/savannah perfect for animal herding.
I'm not alone, this is the God of Aristotle, Spinoza, Newton, Einstein and myself. This is the God of the intelligent.
>>1297614
Someone's probably going to have to think like this, and I'm thankful for them. At some point there needs to be ruthless generals with a firm conviction in destroying an opponent to protect me when the real bogeyman comes, but I can't possibly think as he or fill his shoes. In the end, none do it exactly right, none truly seek God, all intents of man are empty. It may well be said, those who cannot learn are the truly blessed. We all do the best we can with what we have. It's important, though, to remember, regardless of capacity, none of us are divine, and to keep our hearts and minds open to God, to wish to participate in his plan, which is greater than our own.
>>1295922
funny thing "free will" and "omnipotence" are concepts not really mentioned in the bible
I think we do what with spending so much time contemplating free will (I mean this thread doesn't really serve much of a function).
