Are We God's Playthings and is Free-Choice An Illusion?

Question

If the Christian God is Omnipotent (all-powerful), Omnipresent (everywhere), and Omniscient (all-knowing), then he/she knew that Adam & Eve would sin before he even created them. So, he puts them in a no win situation from the start, and punishes them for it.

Also, why would God put his precious human creation in the same area as "the serpent?" Hmmm... seems logically deficient.

And speaking of Satan, GOD knew when Satan (Lucifer) was first created that he would turn against him. So, either GOD is not truly Omnipotent, or he doesn't really exist, or we are all his lab mice and he/she just loves to mess with our minds. ;)

Comments??

Answer 1

I wrote an article related to this... I hope you will take the time to really read it because it covers all the questions that you are asking. I wrote this paper not to accuse others... but to defend my faith in light of statements people ask concerning my faith in light of what I have learned from science.

"Biblical Creationism: Fact or Myth?
Scientific Evidences for Skeptics to Ponder"

Do you know what life is? I believe it's like a science experiment. We're here to find out why we are here. Unless you know a better reason, I'd say, it is to be skeptical and figure things out.

In case you didn't know; "skeptic" is a Greek word that means "to examine". We need to examine all the evidence and make up our minds what the truth is. I think that a lot of people get college degrees but devote themselves to one particular school of thought. They follow those thoughts without question and enjoy the mutual companionship of their closed group of peers. Most never realize that their grand theories are founded on mere presuppositions that have little to do with the facts.

I think that a lot of people would believe in God right now if He personally appeared to them. If God appeared to anyone, in any form, it would be enough to convince them it was really Him! But then we wouldn't have a choice; no opportunity to grasp love's concepts. God does not want to force us to follow Him; just be willing to make that choice for ourselves!

Think about it; all the ancient religions taught that the universe had no beginning,... but one. Some taught that gods came out of sort of a watery substance and that the earth was made through great upheavals and violence between the gods. A religion is worthless unless it is grounded in scientific facts! If there is such a religion today, then we better find out what the truth is in all this!

I believe the God of the Bible is the most logical explanation for our universe as we know it today. Consider these next few statements of rational logic. First, there has to be a cause for every effect. The universe had to come from something. There is no natural explanation for how the sun, moon, and stars could come from nothing! Therefore, for every effect, there has to be a cause! This Cause has to come from outside the universe; outside of nature. In other words;...supernatural. When I state "supernatural" I mean; a limitless being outside of time and space. Think about it! The only religion that ever stated otherwise was the biblical concept of Genesis! God always existed, but the universe did not!

Second, the Cause must be independent of it's effect. It can not be required to depend it's existence upon the universe. For nothing can change from a state of nothingness.

Third, the Cause must be infinitely powerful! If it were limited, it would have to be confined by some other thing. It can not be limited by nothing and if it were limited, it would not be independent any longer. The effect can not be greater than the cause. The Cause has to be greater than the effect! It has to be greater than all the forces of the universe combined!

Fourth, the first Cause must be eternal. The creator must exist outside of time. The God of the Bible stated this in Exodus 3:14 and John 8:58. All the other religions honored harvest gods, war gods, moon gods, sun gods, animal-headed gods, fertility gods and goddesses. In fact, most of these gods were restricted to time as well as location. (1)

Fifth, the first Cause must be spiritual. Only an entity outside the universe could have created it. It must be beyond the physical elements. John 4:24 states that God is Spirit.

Sixth, the first Cause must be all-knowing. The creator created the universe. Albert Einstein wrote, "The harmony of natural law... reveals and intelligence of such superiority that compared with it, all the systematic thinking and acting of human beings is an insignificant reflection." (2)

Last, the first Cause must be a Person. There is design in the universe. For it is balanced by the four fundamental nuclear forces. If altered by the slightest one millionth of a degree, all the stars would cease to exist. The Person would have to be a creator with desires, because the creator did not need the creation in order to exist. Rather, the universe was created out of pleasure! It is not unreasonable to suggest that the Bible is the best explanation.

THE OTHER SOLUTIONS...

There are only three possible theories as to the reason the universe is eternal. Some religions teach that the cause and effect are equal; "God and the universe are one". This contradicts what I stated earlier that for every cause there must be an effect. "Duality" is not logical! Astrophysicist Steven Hawking stated, "People go overboard on eastern mysticism simply because it is something different that they haven't met before. But as a natural description of reality; it fails abysmally to produce results." (3)

The Steady State Cosmology Theory is the scientific equal to eastern religious thinking. The scientific version had three originators: Herman Bondi, Thomas Gold, and Fred Hoyle. It suggests that a "creation field" be added to Einstein's general relativity equations to demonstrate that matter was being created at a rate precisely counterbalanced by the universe's expansion; so that the average density of the universe remains constant.

Einstein initially agreed with this explanation and added his "cosmological constant" in order to alter his computations and preserve the idea of a universe without a beginning. However in 1931, Einstein was forced to admit his "mistake" due to the observations of Edwin Hubble. (4)

In 1929, Edwin Hubble discovered that all distant galaxies are retreating from us at a speed that is directly proportional to their distances from us. This means that if a galaxy is twice as far from the Milky Way, it is moving twice as fast from us. This discovery is now known as "Hubble's Law". Robert Jastrow; founder of NASA's Goddard Institute and is current director of Mount Wilson Observatory; where Hubble made his discoveries stated, "The Hubble Law is one of the greatest discoveries in science; it is one of the main supports of the scientific story of Genesis." (5) Keep in mind; Jastrow is a self proclaimed agnostic. (6) Today, the Hubble Telescope has discovered that the universe's expansion is now decelerating from an initial surge. The universe is exploding rather than expanding! This theory was soon discarded.

The second theory was called "Plasma Cosmology". It suggested that most of the universe is composed of electrically conducting gasses. Hannes Alfv'en, the originator, suggested that plasma indirectly creates a repelling effect between galaxy superstructures, causing the expansion of the universe. Unlike the Big Bang Theory that suggests an explosion started at a single point; Alfv'en believed it was a series of "mini-bangs". He suggested that the universe expands and contracts to one percent of it's present size. Yet, for some unknown reason, the plasma blows the universe apart again, thus maintaining eternal equilibrium. (7)

The "Quasi-Steady State Cosmology" theory is a spin-off of Plasma Cosmology. Originated in 1993 by Fred Hoyle, Burbridge, and Narlikar. The theory suggests that the "creation field" (from which matter is born) only exists in certain areas of high mass density. The fields alternately increase and decrease during the history of the universe. This results in slow and fast expansion. They claim that the universe is one trillion years old and that we are living in the middle of a short term slowdown in it's expansion rate. This gives the appearance of an equilibrium between collapse and accelerated expansion that would be too rapid for galaxies to form.

Both of these theories do not account for the composition of the spectrographic studies or for how the universe came out of nothing. These theories also haven't been able to explain the smooth background radiation now observed coming from every point in the sky. (More on this later.)

The last theory is much like the previous one and the refutation of them both is to be equally regarded. The "Cyclic Cosmological Theory" is the belief that the density of the universe will expand to the point of a critical anti-matter amount and then reverse itself into a big squeeze. At this point, it will "re-bang" itself into a new universe again.

One can't take either of these views seriously; Einstein's theory of relativity states that once matter crunches itself into a ball, (like a black hole) nothing, not even light can escape. This is due to the magnetic pull. It takes a projectile to reach the speed of 25,000 miles per hour to leave the earth's gravity. For a body to be massive enough; like a star, it collapses under it's own gravity. Incidentally black holes exist. An example of that would be Cygnus X-1; it turned out to be a collapsed super giant whirling around an invisible object every five days.

If matter can not re-bang itself from a black hole, it can not do it if the universe was a black hole either! "Even if someday such a theory could develop, it won't be in regular cycles of expansions and contractions; rather it will be even greater and more chaotic ones!" (8) And this still does not explain how something could come out of nothing. George Smoot; team leader of the Cosmic Background Explorer Satellite System of NASA, stated that all these theories will die out when the originators die out. Science simply doesn't support them any longer. (9)

It is perfectly alright for someone to state his metaphysical opinions about what caused or didn't cause the universe, but it is wrong to state that science provided the information. Astrophysicist Barry Parker states "We do, of course, have an alternative. We could say that there is no creation, and that the universe has always been there. But this is more difficult to accept than creation! (10) All the other options point to a biblical God and natural science ends where the Bible begins!". (11)

The Big Bang theory describes a creation event that defies atheism and pantheism but harmonizes with the Bible. It is the only theory that observational evidence does support. It wasn't till recently that anyone had reason to believe that there was a biblical beginning.

In 1933, George Lemaitre' became the father of the Big Bang theory. Back in 1927, Lemaitre' predicted that a primeval atom, otherwise known as a singularity, might still be detected in a form of remnant radiation. Other Big Bang theorists such as George Gamov, Ralph Alpher, and Robert Herman; have stated that the heat radiating from the explosion might still exist. Unlike a volcano or a microwave oven; in which heat can escape into the atmosphere, there is nowhere outside of the universe where heat can escape.

In 1965, two astrophysicists; Arno Penzias and Robert Wilson at AT&T Bell Laboratories in New Jersey found the radiation while attempting to refine one of the world's most sensitive radio receiving devices to measure a true temperature of absolute zero. It was their hypothesis that absolute zero could be determined by directing the radio antenna towards the sky and measuring the temperature within space. No matter where they pointed the receiver, the level of radiation remained at 2.7 degrees Kelvin. They found this to be very frustrating because no matter what day or night, nor what season it was, the temperature of the radiation remained unchanged. In 1978, Arno and Robert, each, received the Nobel Peace Prize for discovering this amazing fact! This later became known as Cosmic (which means the entire universe) Microwave (which means radio waves measuring less than one meter) Background Radiation (which means radiation measured everywhere).

In 1990, NASA spent $200 million dollars producing the COBE (Cosmic Background Explorer) satellite. It gave a cosmologist a chance to make more accurate measurements of the radiation. The Microwaves matched perfectly the characteristics that the universe was once a great fireball that detonated all over the vast empty regions of what is now our universe. It is now a scientific fact that no other theory other than the creation event could have created the universe! The results were 99.97% accurate! (12) Astrophysicists John Barrow and Joseph Silk stated that there are no known sources that can account for the source of this radiation other than the cosmic background at a constant observed level. (13)

In 1979, Dr. Alan Guth determined that the size of the universe doubles and at given intervals as the result of the initial speeds of the universe from the time that the universe began; have slowed down due to the decrease of heat in subatomic particles. (14) At the time of the explosion the temperature was too hot for particles to form and in less than a trillionth of a second later, the temperature cooled below one hundred thousand degrees Kelvin to form quarks and electrons. As the temperatures continued to fall, the quarks clumped together to form protons and neutrons, producing hydrogen our first element. At the time of the explosion, the entire universe consisted of a region a trillionth of the size of a proton. It expanded in velocity of about one fourth the speed of light. Any uneven radiation could have been smoothed out by the rapid force of expansion! The evidence is found in COBE satellite data. (15) The universe could have come from nothing, but that does not explain where the thermonuclear reactions came from, or the fact that this explosion was not random, but rather a finely tuned explosion that produced the elements necessary to create intelligent life! George Smoot wrote; "The Beginning is as inescapable for cosmologists as it is for theologians." (16) Robert Jastrow wrote; "The essential element in the astronomical and biblical accounts of Genesis are the same; the chain of events leading to man, commenced suddenly and sharply, at a definite moment in time, in a flash of light and energy." (17)

The evidence of design by a creator is discovered more clearly as we understand how the universe works. Scientists understand how the universe's laws are set within extremely narrow and critical parameters. Physicist Freeman Dyson stated; "The more I examine the universe and the details of it's architecture, the more evidence I find that the universe in some sense must have known we were coming." (18)

Where did all the natural laws of design come from? It is superstitious to believe the laws of nature govern themselves and the universe without cause! I have a supernatural explanation, do you have a natural one?

The observational evidence listed in the next few pages will prove that the laws of astrophysics were designed by a highly intelligent creator; God. First, the carbon atom should not exist or be exceedingly rare. In order for the carbon atom to form, it needs to be at a precise level of resonance. Resonance is the nuclear behavior of excitement within the nucleus of an atom. The electron rotates around its own axis at a fixed rate and cannot be stopped or changed except by destroying the electron. If the speed of the electron is increased, it so drastically alters its properties that it results in a completely different particle. Nuclei is normally configured for stability and minimum energy. It can be excited as the result of colliding with other nuclei. When this happens, the proton moves into a higher orbit. A helium nuclei will collide with another to form beryllium. Then another helium nuclei collides with the short lived beryllium to form carbon. If the resonance was just a bit lower, carbon could not form. If the resonance was just a bit higher the energy level would destroy the carbon atom instantly. (19) When Hoyle calculated the odds that such resonances could occur by chance, he stated that his faith in agnosticism was greatly shaken. (20) Princeton's physicist Freeman Dyson stated that lucky accidents such as chains of carbon atoms, still could not form water, organic molecules, and the hydrogen to bridge between the molecules. (21) Even Carl Sagan admits that the laws of nature can not occur at random; "It is easy to see that only a very restricted range of laws of nature are consistent with the galaxies, stars, planets, life and intelligence." (22)

Second, if the ratio between the proton (which is 1836 times heavier than the electron), and the electron slightly different; there would be no chemistry, or life, or any physicists to wonder about it all! Stephen Hawking says; "The remarkable fact is that the values of their numbers seems to have been very finely adjusted to make possible the development of life." (23)

Third, if the four fundamental nuclear forces in nature (gravity, electromagnetism, weak interactions, and strong nuclear forces) had been a slightly different strength; life would not be possible. Within the nucleus of an atom, there are two opposing forces, attraction and repulsion. On one hand, there are electrical repulsions which would tear the nucleus apart. On the other hand, there are forces of attraction which bind the nuclear particles to each other. When an extra neutron is added to the nucleus, the nucleus breaks up, forming two smaller nuclei, which fly apart, releasing a vast amount of energy. This is what occurs in nuclear fission. The sun would cease to burn or explode. (24,25)

Fourth, the natural processes alone can not explain the specified complexities of the encoded information in DNA. Hoyle, Gold, Orgel, and Arrhenius calculated the odds that all the functional proteins necessary for life that might form in one place at ten to the forty thousandth power. (That's 1 with 40,000 zero's after it) Since there are only ten to the eightieth atoms in the entire universe; this suggestion was an outrageously small probability!

Fifth, the odds that the relative strengths that two forces could balance each other (gravity: which holds a star together and electromagnetic force: which allows a star to radiate energy) in every star were altered by a mere ten to the fortieth power, we'd have a world in which all stars were either red dwarfs or blue super giants; making it impossible for planets to support human life. (26)

Sixth, we have no modern theory why, contrary to the second law of thermodynamics, our universe got into such an orderly state. The odds are ten to the tenth power times ten to the ten to the thirtieth power! (27)

Seventh, astrophysicist Richard Morris stated; "If our universe had been expanding at a rate that was slower than one part per million, then the expansion would have stopped when the universe was only thirty thousand years old, and when the temperature was still ten thousand degrees." (28) If expanding at a slightly faster rate, the universe would be devoid of stars and galaxies, and hence, the building blocks of which life is made. (29)

Eighth, there is a slight excess of matter over anti-matter. In 1932, Carl Anderson discovered anti-matter in a lab at Caltech. Emilio Segri and Owen Chamberlain generated their own anti-matter and demonstrated that when energy is converted into matter, anti-matter is equally created. Nobel prize winning physicist Steven Weinberg explained how rare this small excess of matter must have been; "If there had not been a small excess of electrons over anti-electrons, and quarks over anti-quarks, then ordinary particles like electrons and quarks would be virtually absent in the universe today. It is this early excess; estimated at one part per ten billion, that survived to form light atomic nuclei three minutes after the explosion, and after a million years, formed atoms which later was cooked into heavier elements found in stars, which ultimately provided the material of which life would arise." (30)

Ninth, the centrifugal force perfectly balances the gravitational forces of the moon's orbit around the earth. If the earth's gravity had been too weak, the moon would leave the earth's gravitational pull. If the gravity was too great, the moon would have crashed into the earth! This is also true of the earth's rotation around the sun and that of all the planets in our solar system, as well as all the galaxies to the farthest ends of our universe!

(These are only nine of twenty five total. For more information, see reference #6 in bibliography)

Our universe was born as the result of natural laws that do not seem to change. For those who think science needs more time to evaluate this situation, is not 15 to 20 billion light years enough time? (The universe is approximately thirty billion light years across. With the doubling effect of expansion at given time intervals, it is estimated that the age of the universe is approximately 15 billion years.)

Some people believe Hollywood's suggestion that multiple universes exist and converge upon one another like branches of a tree. Given the facts that we know to be true, if other universes do exist, (in finite numbers) there is a high probability they would not support life. Physicist/mathematician Paul Davies stated; "One may find it easier to believe in an infinite array of universes than in an infinite Deity, but such a belief must rest on faith rather than observation." (32)

Some people actually believe that life must have been sent here on a spaceship from a dying civilization and that perhaps the astronaut's bacteria survived the journey. Others have suggested that genetic material was sent to this perfect planet for some sort of lab experiment. Of course these excuses only begs the question: How did life begin in the first place? If natural laws can not explain how life began on this "ideal" planet, how can it be so at any location?

Some people believe in the ultimate game of chance; Quantum Mechanics. This is the belief that there is no reality until someone observes it. If this idea were true then looking through a telescope could alter events billions of years into the past! This suggestion gives it's enthusiast's a chance to speculate that through man's act of observation, he caused his own creation along with the conditions necessary for life!

Of course, this theory creates a which came first; the chicken or the egg problem that can go on forever! This idea still does not address the need for a first cause. Incidentally, physicists have never observed any effects in our visible world and very few scientists take seriously the notion that the universe, so perfectly designed, changed because someone looked at it! Perhaps the whole universe had no existence till it was observed? But who would be outside the universe to observe it? Does this not sound like the transcendent God? Soon as these folks realize that they are wrestling with the supernatural explanation that they have strived to avoid!

Some people believe that life must exist till the end of time, in a closed universe. In order for life to survive in that hot, dense time, when the universe will contract once again; our descendents must evolve to a very different and advanced civilization. Before the end of time, our super computer-like society will achieve the ability to process an infinite amount of information. At that point, which will be called the "Origin Point", we will assume the role of gods. We will process and infinite amount of thoughts, at infinite speed, our evolved supreme civilization will redefine time; ensuring an eternity for ourselves and for every living being that existed in the past. Our future descendents will view the human soul as a program that can be replicated. They will propose that this infinite intelligence will resurrect each of us, so that we might be appropriately rewarded or reformed. (33) People that are willing to consider such wild explanations can only demonstrate how impossible it is for them to avoid the evidence for design. We all must decide whether to credit the design of intelligence to God or to ourselves.

For some, the thought that humans might be the only form of intelligent life in the universe, strikes most with being extremely unscientific. Many scientists have suggested that the universe must be teeming with extraterrestrials by now, (34) in order to conform with the assumption about biological evolution. Robert Jastrow stated; "If life is common, we'll be hearing from those guys soon, because we are in a very conspicuous part of the universe right now. Our television and radio waves are spread all around us. It is reasonable to assume that advanced technological civilizations will be aware of radio physics. There is only one radio spectrum, and it's the same everywhere in the universe." (35,36) So why have we not picked up any signals yet? If there are so many civilizations, more advanced than ours, certainly they would want to explore and colonize other planets in the galaxy! Ours would be ideal! We have the right conditions for life. So where are they?

Some people ask that if the universe is so vast; why would God make the universe so huge? With all the billions of stars and galaxies like our own, why are we so special? Astrophysicists John Barrow and Joseph Silk states that no one could exist if the universe were any smaller. They point out that life's building blocks: carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, phosphorus, and silicon; were not formed until after the first generation of stars have slowly cooked the hydrogen and helium into the heavier elements which planets are made out of. (37) Given the fact that the universe has been stable throughout it's expansion, more time results in a larger universe. Further they stated; "Hence, we realize that for there to be time to construct the constituents of living beings, the universe must be more than a billion years old and consequently, more than a billion light years in size. The universe would have to be just as large as it is to support even one lonely outpost of life." (38)

We have only three choices. Either we decide that the universe, or mankind, or God is running the universe. Those willing to choose an alternative other than God, defies logic. The other two choices have no explanation or theory on which they can stand. Please understand that all the quotes, except one are from scientists who are not bible believing Christians. This report has not been prejudiced by a Christian viewpoint. Those who have rejected the God of the Bible have to base their conclusions inspite of the evidence and not because of it!

Some people believe that God is one with the universe. This idea is not consistent with science because the universe had a beginning. Belief in blind chance requires considerable faith. Taken to it's logical end; it's so pathetic that it's almost funny! Logic dictates that we should devote our short lives to finding the means to know the one outside of time and space. Although the world is filled with suffering and violence; if people seek the answer, they would find out that God has done something about it all. There is good logic in trusting the one cosmic history that fits what we know of God.

Many state that if the Big Bang were true, then it is in direct conflict with the Bible's six day account in Genesis. Yet in Hebrew, "day" means "yom", which has been translated to mean a specific period of time and not to be confused with a solar day. (39) Christian tradition also agree's with this concept, as pointed out by the first century writers; Philo and Josephus. (40) Other writers include: Augustine (41), second century apologist and martyr; Irenaeus, third century apologist; Origen, fourth century bishop of Caesarea; Basil, thirteenth century; Thomas Aquinas. (42) In the twentieth century, this position was held by C.T. Scofield, A.H. Strong, and Gleason Archer.

There are also scripture references that gives a general sense of a time consuming process; including ages:

Psalm 104
Proverbs 8:22-31
Ecclesiastes 3:11a
Micah 6:3
Habakkuk 3:6

Genesis was not written specifically about when and how the universe was created, but who created it! Psalms 111:2 states "Great are the works of the Lord; they are studied by all who delight in them!"

It would be deceptive of God's character to create a universe that would appear to be billions of years old and yet be only six solar days. Starlight can only travel so fast. For the span of the universe to be thirty billion light years across; the universe must be pretty old! This suggestion does not necessarily mean that the biblical concept of Genesis would agree with Darwin's evolutionary dogmas either. However, science and the Bible agree that planets and other animals were created first and that man and mammals were created last.

God created the entire universe plus self-conscious beings like Himself. Having been given a freedom of choice, these persons eventually declared their independence from God and broke His laws; which were necessary for the good life that God planned for them. The situation became very unpleasant for God and so He had two choices. He could have exterminated them; the end, the plan failed. Or, out of His caring concern and love for them; provide a solution. He could not simply forgive anyone because He had to do something about all the injustice in the world. God pronounced a just sentence (Romans 8:1); but also provided a full pardon to all who would take it. He had to be mortal because God can not die and He had to be God because only a sinless person could pay for the sins of another. If Jesus is who He claimed to be, then it is not unreasonable for God to be bound by death! Nor is it unreasonable to suggest that He should have the power and the purpose to rise from the dead! In fact; it would be unreasonable for God to be bound by death! (43)

If the infinite Creator wanted to communicate to all of us earthlings what He was like; how could He show us more clearly than becoming one of us? If He wanted to show us how serious the offense is, to break His moral law, how better than to forfeit His own life? And if He wanted to tell us how much He loves us, how could He do it more dramatic than dying for us?

Biblical faith is more than intellectual reasoning. It is the logical choice! Other religions have teachings about an historical person, but it is Christianity that's based on what a person did. Of all the religions, no other has left such lucid evidence of God's involvement with humanity. We can either appreciate God's way more deeply or we can stubbornly and foolishly decide to go our own way and see where the outcome will lead. Anyone wishing to make sure that he has taken the first step of faith, should confess his moral failings to God and then in his own words, thank God for sending His own Son Jesus to die for him! From that point on, trust Christ to lead and develop his worth in a way that would never had been known without Him.

Answer 2

Here's my view on the whole 'free will' business: If we try to pin down what might be meant by the idea of free will, it melts away and slips through our fingers. Superficially it means the ability to make free choices, but what exactly is free about a choice? If the actual choice we make at any given point is the result of our innate nature, plus environmental influences, plus all of our life experiences, then it really comes down to cause and effect - a bit of this influence, a bit of that influence, factor in how happy or grumpy we happen to be that day, and out pops a choice, like plugging numbers into a spreadsheet and seeing the result appear at the bottom. It's hard to see that such a choice can be called 'free' in any significant sense - at least, not without saying that therefore tornados and rivers and volcanoes also have free choice. We are certainly complex, and hard to predict, but then so is the weather, and we don't therefore conclude that the weather has free will. Is cause and effect the only principle to consider? Well, if we live in a non-deterministic universe, as seems to be the case, then we might also suppose that there is a genuine randomness which means that cause and effect can never be determined with 100% accuracy, but this doesn't obviously save the concept of free will either - to have our thoughts and actions influenced by entirely random factors over which we have no control would seem to *detract* from our free will rather than providing a sound basis for it... and again, we would be no different from any other physical process in that respect. So, the idea of free will would appear to be not so much false, as simply unintelligible. If we are part of the material universe, made of atoms and molecules, subject to the same forces as any other physical object, then how can we claim to have some property that nothing else in the known universe possesses? What can legitimately be called 'free' about being driven by cause and effect and/or random chance? Well, one thing we do have, which other complex natural phenomena do not, is intelligence. Specifically, we have the ability to anticipate the likely consequences of our actions, and the tendency to modify our behaviour accordingly. A hurricane moving across the North Atlantic towards the coast of the USA might continue on its path, quickly lose its energy over the land and dissipate, or it might veer away and intensify over the ocean, but it is strictly governed by the forces of nature - it has neither the knowledge of what could happen to it nor the ability to change it. In contrast, human beings have the unique ability to foresee what is likely to happen, and that foresight is then an additional influence - usually a very large influence - on subsequent events. In principle there is nothing to stop me plunging my hand into a pan of boiling water, but my anticipation of the consequences far outweighs any inclination to try it. It's still the principle of cause and effect governing events, so in that strict sense the outcome is no more 'free' than the fate of the hurricane, but the anticipation and the will to act on it do make human actions qualitatively different from unthinking physical processes. I think this is the way to resolve the apparent paradox that, on the one hand, we know we are made of the same stuff and are subject to the same laws of physics as any other object, and on the other hand that it *feels* like we have a freedom that inanimate objects and systems simply do not have. This way of accounting for free will is perfectly consistent with our current understanding of the material universe, it doesn't demand any exotic new kind of physics and it certainly doesn't require us to have any mystical component that influences the material universe but is not part of it (e.g. a 'soul' or a 'spirit').

Answer 3

This "god" makes Satan look like Mother Angelica. If there was a god, he probably has a lot of free time on his hands. I'm thinking of some loser sitting on the computer creating and controlling people's lives on the Sims.

You have a valid point, that if he was truly omniscient, then he would have seen this "corruption" approaching. Specifically, when the corruption started, and he decided to flood the earth, he "realized he had made a mistake" (I'm paraphrasing), According to the bible. Now, how is that possible? The answer is that it's mythology.

Answer 4

How about this. Would you love God if he was your ONLY choice? Probably not. Does our government send people out of the prison system knowing they will be back in jail, yes. Why? Because they have to give them the right to make their own choices. God could have prevented Adam from sinning, but would that have made Adam anything more than a slave? No.
Remember this, God called David a man after his own heart, and he was an adulterer, a murderer, and a poor father. But it was not these actions that God loved him for, it was the fact that he Loved God dearly and would turn from his sins because of that.

Answer 5

Hello,
you can find a free download of Act of War Direct Action here: http://bit.ly/1qDAv0S

Finally the full version is avaiable!
Act of War: Direct Action is a strategy game that includes the essence of a lustrous techno-thriller, combined together with live action footage.
It's a really nice game.

Answer 6

God wanted to see if His creation would love Him by free will. same with Lucifer. God may be all-knowing but that doesn't mean He interferes in our life. Only if we ask Him to guide us, will He.

Answer 7

He did know it was to happen. But you know what he knows will happen? Good and faithfull servants will live for eternity with him free of sin. Never again will sin bother his creations. Satan along with sin will be in the bottomless pit.

Answer 8

There are lots of people who would laugh at the prospect of changing their destinies. This is because it thinks that no one gets more that exactly what is put in his fate.

Answer 9

Maybe we ARE just all lab mice...

REBEL, FELLOW LAB MICE!! REBEL!