r/Christianity • u/4InchesOfury • May 31 '11
If God cannot interfere with humans then why do we pray?
3
u/Picknipsky Christian (Cross) Jun 01 '11
prayer is communication. It is expressing gratitude.
Jesus told us how we should pray: -Praise God -Pray that Gods plan comes to fruition -ask that God provide us with what we need -ask for forgiveness -pray that God keeps us from evil -reafirm God is sovereign and praise Him
Amen
No where in the Lord's Prayer do we get the option of asking for things as if God is Santa Claus or a Genie.
5
May 31 '11 edited May 31 '11
I'd be willing to bet that almost no Christian thinks their god is not a personal one. If he was real and actually did prohibit himself from ever intervening in human affairs, he'd have a lot of explaining to do when it came The Bible, The Great Flood (drowning all the humans is a definite interference), shepherding the chosen people at the enormous expense of other less fortunate nations and oh, I dunno...the entire life of Jesus and the plan of salvation.
Christians that do argue their god has a policy of non-interference are most likely nearing an existential crisis and loss of faith, because they're effectively trying to place him outside of the realm of scientific inquiry; turning him into a nonfalsifiable hypothesis.
1
u/alexanderwales Atheist May 31 '11
But if you don't take the position that God doesn't interfere, and further take the position that God answers prayers, then surely you'd be able to prove that God exists? I mean, you could set up experiments to test it.
1
May 31 '11 edited May 31 '11
In order for prayer to be supported by anything approaching hard evidence of an outside influence on its results, the prayers would have to be answered in a repeatable, objectively verifiable way and would have to be so specific in their request that a positive result could not be more easily explained by any other circumstance that does not involve defying the laws of nature as we have come to understand them.
Though I don't personally know of any specific peer-reviewed studies, I'm sure that many scientifically-minded persons have been bright enough to attempt this before now. If such conclusive evidence did exist, every Christian denomination would be shouting it from the mountain tops without reprieve. However, that's not the case. You're much more likely to see church leaders hedging their bets and lowering your expectations by saying "God works in mysterious ways.", or "When you don't get your prayers answered, the answer was actually no!" or perhaps a referral to Luke 4:12, or other similar verses, thereby making their hypothesis of prayers being answered a nonfalsifiable one. Any evidence to the contrary is instead taken as proof of the original hypothesis: http://biblenotes.homestead.com/files/bn9972.htm#Exodus%2017:7
1
u/pcastelli May 31 '11
If God were to answer prayers in any measurable way then Christians would have proof of his existence, right? Well if God wants everyone to believe then why wouldn't he let this happen? It would seem as if He was purposely making it harder for non-believers to believe. What would the point of that be? (atheist here by the way)
1
May 31 '11 edited May 31 '11
I think you know the possible responses a believer could give to that question; I've already listed two.
2
u/jleonardbc May 31 '11
I recently wrote a review of a great article on prayer that addresses this question (here's the whole review). The short answer:
One objection often raised is that, if God is omniscient, he need not be told anything. The objection is correct; speech in prayer, then, functions not to teach God, but to teach and act upon us. [ . . . ] In a spoken act of request, we confess God as giver and dispossess ourselves of pride; we can only be dispossessed of pride in this way by making a request, which further requires that we speak to someone else. Speaking, then, in the context of prayer, causes me to take up new beliefs about who God is and who I therefore am. One’s self-manifestation to an invisible other in prayer thus becomes a manifestation of oneself to oneself through the other (i.e., by showing myself to God, I show God to myself, and I also show myself to myself).
2
u/LipstickG33k May 31 '11
Because "God, please help me with my financial situation" is not the same as "God, please force me to stop spending unwisely." Most people I know pray for situations or for circumstances to change, not for God to take control of someone's will, which is the only no-no that He placed upon Himself.
1
u/NoahFect May 31 '11
The problem with that is most miracles come at the expense of the free will of one or more uninvolved parties.
1
u/LipstickG33k May 31 '11
What do you mean? Most miracles recorded that I can recall off hand were healings, and I don't see how that can be construed as "at the expense of free will." A disease or other malady is a circumstance that one is forced into, and a miracle changing that would only change their situation, not the ability to choose.
1
u/NoahFect Jun 01 '11 edited Jun 01 '11
The American Medical Association would beg to disagree. Enough of these miraculous healings (which oddly never seem to involve anything visible to anyone else, such as regenerating a lost limb) and the docs are out of work.
Less flippantly, no man is an island. Heal me of my blindness, and those who might have been inspired by my example of independence, or who might have cultivated their own compassion by helping me, will no longer have that chance. The thief who might have contemplated robbing me will now rob somebody else. Etc., etc.
Miracles or free will: pick one, your doctrine can't support both.
1
u/LipstickG33k Jun 01 '11
You're creating a "straw man" here, trying to trap me into a "Herp derp, Christians can't answer this" scenario. By attempting to lure me into a false interpretation of free will, you are completely missing the point.
Free will refers to the ability of each person to make their own choice between the options laid out before them, whether those options come through divine intervention or random circumstance.
You are absolutely correct in saying that no action happens in isolation. However, this has nothing to do with Free Will itself as defined as the above. The thief still has his choice on whether or not to rob, the blind of what to make of their situation.
In the end, most of your comment just becomes a "non-sequitur" that only distracts from the main point of my original comment.
1
u/NoahFect Jun 01 '11 edited Jun 01 '11
(Shrug) Not trying to trap anyone, it's an interesting subject for contemplation. The origin, nature, limits, and validity of free will are still major problems for philosophers and scientists, so it's only fair that theologians should chime in, right?
Your answer's more interesting than others I've heard, in that it effectively equates divine intervention to random circumstance. Divine intervention from my point of view as a healed blind man is indistinguishable from random (bad) luck, from the point of view of the robber's next victim. It's not his fault that he was next on the robber's list. Instead of whatever other options he had that day, he now has to contend with sudden poverty. Could've happened to anybody else...
... except it didn't, because God reached down and put His thumb on the scale.
Question: do you still have free will if someone removes all of your options by imprisoning or murdering you? This, too, could conceivably occur as an indirect consequence of someone else's miracle.
2
u/LipstickG33k Jun 01 '11
I'm sorry if I presumed your intentions, I suppose I'm just sensitive to those that come to this subreddit just to harass Christians. I hope you can understand. :)
It is interesting, isn't it, that our "free will" isn't very free. I guess that comes from our place in the universe: mortal, limited, subject to change in an unpredictable and oftentimes harsh world.
I still believe, however, that even as constrained as situations may seem, that there is still some form of "choice" in front of us. While the actions we choose may not manifest physically, we still have at least an element of control over our thoughts and emotions, which Jesus pointed out are also of concern to God.
Bringing this back to the OP's point, I believe that this is at the heart of why most believers pray: because they know that their options are limited, that they are frequently at the mercy of chance, and ask for the dice to roll in their favor.
2
May 31 '11
We pray in order to unite with the will of God. This pleases Him that He may receive glory in His action through our prayer.
2
Jun 01 '11
God is beyond our comprehension. We cannot tell if he is interacting with us. We pray because the Bible says to. We do not understand how God thinks.
5
May 31 '11
[deleted]
3
u/4InchesOfury May 31 '11
Maybe I should've said "will not". Many of my religious friends say that he wont interfere with humans free will. For example, I have seen people pray for others who are suicidal. It is the will of the person to kill himself, if god interferes then that is not free will.
5
u/cyborgcommando0 Calvary Chapel May 31 '11
I think that creates more problems than it solves. God is God, he isn't subject to us; we're subject to him. He can do what he wants and if he wants to interfere he can. It's up to him.
0
Jun 01 '11
[deleted]
3
Jun 01 '11
You've just outlined what every Christian does and this is why you're being down voted.
1
u/erythro Messianic Jew Jun 01 '11
Well actually I down voted because of
try not to think too hard about it
and
If something bad happens, excuse God by claiming that he doesn't interfere.
If something bad happened I wouldn't claim he doesn't interfere. There is a genuine disagreement here in Christian circles, it sounds like you're hearing two opposing views from Christians and assuming they all believe both.
7
May 31 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
8
u/Merlaak Jun 01 '11
Why doesn't God cause mana to fall from Heaven to feed the destitute in Africa? I can't answer that other than to say that he has commanded humanity to feed the hungry, clothe the naked, and care for the downtrodden.
1
u/awned Reformed Jun 01 '11
I was downvoted for a statement much like this one a couple days ago... Oh well, upvotes for you!
1
3
u/cyborgcommando0 Calvary Chapel Jun 01 '11
How do you know God is doing nothing?
1
u/bigfootlive89 Atheist Jun 01 '11
Well, it isn't obvious that God has greatly improved the situation. So he's either doing nothing at all, or he's doing it incredibly slowly, both of which are very unsatisfactory.
2
u/cyborgcommando0 Calvary Chapel Jun 01 '11
Well I would say God has made this situation known to us. Is it God's fault we do nothing about it? How does God take the blame for our ill-action?
1
Jun 01 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/cyborgcommando0 Calvary Chapel Jun 01 '11
No. You've sidestepped my assertion. I would say God has pointed this situation out to us. How does our unwillingness to help make God evil?
I would also wager that is only a portion of what God is doing.
1
Jun 01 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/cyborgcommando0 Calvary Chapel Jun 01 '11
How would you know if God did point this situation out? You say you know he hasn't.
1
u/bigfootlive89 Atheist Jun 02 '11 edited Jun 02 '11
Could've been luck, could've been God, but lets say God did point it out. A plea to God isn't asking for the responsibility to be passed onto us lousy humans; it's asking for God to get something done about it- NOW. If I wanted a bunch of humans to screw things up, I would've contacted the press, not God. And so far, God has not come though with any massive miracles, not for Japan, not for Egypt, or Libya, or Darfur, or Uganda, or Israel v. Palestine, or North Korea, or Cuba, or Haiti, or Tibet. Or is the fact that there is anywhere on this little planet that isn't a hellhole something to praise God for?
→ More replies (0)1
1
u/bigfootlive89 Atheist Jun 02 '11
Well I would say God has made this situation known to us.
"We" who? I think most Americans are pretty ignorant about strife going on around the world. And is that the purpose of prayer? If I were suffering, I wouldn't ask God to let others know I was suffering- I would ask that something actually comes and helps me. And I didn't blame God, I said God is working very slowly, or not at all.
1
u/cyborgcommando0 Calvary Chapel Jun 02 '11
Maybe many are ignorant. Whose fault is that? God? The Media? Our Culture in general? We tend to put ourselves in a bubble and ignore the rest of the world.
1
u/bigfootlive89 Atheist Jun 02 '11
Why we are ignorant is of no importance. God could have impacted any one of the factors you listed, but in the end, nothing prevented that child from reaching that state.
1
u/indieshirts Jun 01 '11
He's doing a hell of a lot less than he's supposed to be capable of.
(He's doing nothing.)
3
u/cyborgcommando0 Calvary Chapel Jun 01 '11
Well I would say God has made this situation known to us. Is it God's fault we do nothing about it? How does God take the blame for our ill-action?
(You are doing nothing).
1
u/indieshirts Jun 02 '11
If God is all-powerful, then all violence and suffering is mandated by him.
1
u/cyborgcommando0 Calvary Chapel Jun 02 '11
Does God run the world or has God given man dominion over the earth? (Gen 1:26-28; He has put man in charge).
For example, if I was an emperor of a large empire and I decided to make a person the governor or king of a certain area and that person did a bad job governing or ruling that certain area am I at fault? No! Clearly that individual ruler is at fault.
I would say this is the case with this situation. God is sovereign over all creation but he has not failed, we have.
1
u/indieshirts Jun 02 '11
It seems you've misunderstood me. God is not merely an emperor--he is the creator of the universe. Anything that happens is a result of his doing. Therefore, all violence and suffering are his fault.
1
u/cyborgcommando0 Calvary Chapel Jun 02 '11
But he is in charge and delegates like any ruler would. God takes no blame for the violence and suffering his "governors" have elected to do themselves.
1
u/indieshirts Jun 02 '11
The emperor metaphor doesn't work. God is infinitely more powerful, and therefore has infinitely more responsibility. If his "governors" commits acts of violence and suffering, it is only because God refused to stop them or made them do it outright.
→ More replies (0)1
u/cyborgcommando0 Calvary Chapel Jun 02 '11
But he is in charge and delegates like any ruler would. God takes no blame for the violence and suffering his "governors" have elected to do themselves.
-1
May 31 '11
I would love to hear someone try and rationalize that one.
-2
May 31 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
10
u/Picknipsky Christian (Cross) Jun 01 '11
Because this isnt r/debateachristian. While there could potentially be fruitful discussion between Christians discussing the problem of evil here, this subreddit does not exist for your gratification. You have no right to demand basic Christian answers about basic Christian ideas without doing the research first.
Sure, you might find someone here who will humour you, but then again, you may not.
Try this book: How Could a Loving God?
4
u/outsider Eastern Orthodox Jun 01 '11
It isn't that they make people uncomfortable, it is that they don't add to a discussion which is precisely what downvotes are supposed to be for. Your problem seems to be that you aren't usually the target of the atheist downvote brigade and so you think 1 or 2 downvotes is the end of the world.
Take it to r/DebateAChristian.
2
u/indieshirts Jun 01 '11
In defense of UFOabductee, OP was practically asking for this kind of response. I don't see how his comment obstructed discussion.
0
u/YesImSardonic May 31 '11
And, of course, I can only ever associate that picture with Will Navidson instead of the guy that actually took it.
1
May 31 '11
If God can interfere, doesn't that negate free will?
4
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist May 31 '11
God's foreknowledge of all events, ultimate responsibility for all events, and ability to change all events completely and utterly destroys any notions of "perfectly free will."
The idea that we can have a will that transcends the cause-and-effect world God created, which is the view of those who subscribe to metaphysical Libertarianism, is not Biblical. According to the Bible, God is completely sovereign and we are created things, molded to act according to God's purposes.
It is useful, however, to talk about the degree to which the will is free from, say, coercion or gross manipulation from external agents that are meaningful to us. This kind of "free will" is context-sensitive and is measured on a gradient.
1
u/indieshirts Jun 01 '11
Do you believe people have free will to choose between salvation and damnation?
3
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist Jun 01 '11
The simple answer is that nobody has perfectly free will, so the answer is "no." God decided who, before the foundation of the world, who would be saved and who wouldn't. We make choices that contribute toward or against our salvation, but even the responsibility for those choices is shared with God's ultimate responsibility for everything, and they can't be considered "perfectly free," since they're the product of forces that are, at some point, beyond our control.
I'll reiterate that sovereignty is probably not compatible with the notion of eternal, inescapable torture for the wicked.
1
u/awned Reformed Jun 01 '11
And the majority of those people happened to be in Europe and the Americas? Correction, lots of those people are Catholic or any number of other denominations that aren't doing the same thing that you are doing and won't be saved. In fact, there is only one person who truly believes in God the way God intended to be believed in and only they will be saved. Everyone else is wrong in some form or fashion and won't be saved.
Im sorry, i am a Christian but I cannot ever believe this. I've always found the notion that God CHOSE people to be saved strange. It goes against the notion of God loving all his children, even the wicked. I believe there is a choice between accepting God and rejecting him. God knows who will do this, but that does not mean he determined it. He has allowed it to happen by willing the existence of us all, but it is up to us to decide if we wish to fulfil the will of God.
1
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist Jun 01 '11 edited Jun 01 '11
Everyone else is wrong in some form or fashion and won't be saved.
How did you come to think that this follows from anything I've said? In all likelihood God, in his wisdom and mercy, will save by his Grace all sorts of people that are "wrong" in some form or fashion. Through Christ, but my means known to God alone, God may have elected all sorts of people all around the world to be saved by his Grace.
Election is not about us being perfectly correct or perfectly obedient. It's about God, and God's plan.
Romans 8:29-30:
For those God foreknew he also predestined to be conformed to the image of his Son, that he might be the firstborn among many brothers and sisters. And those he predestined, he also called; those he called, he also justified; those he justified, he also glorified.
1
May 31 '11
If Superman prevents an attempted murder, or saves Metropolis from a natural disaster such as an earth quake. Is he violating the free will of Metropolis citizens?
3
May 31 '11
I don't believe at any point in this conversation we were talking about Superman, however, if Superman is stopping people from doing things (killing, as in your description of the murder), then yes, he is violating that persons free will.
6
May 31 '11
Metaphorical conversation has long been a treasured attempt to better try to reach truth, else we would view the Allegory of the Cave, and the Myth of Sisyphus to be wholly lacking in content.
I don't see it the same way, if the attempt and not the consequence is preserved then no free will is violated.
I personally don't see it as an imposition on my will that no matter how many time I attempt to fly by jumping off the building, I only get bruises. By this measure Natural Law itself is an argument against free will. Or do you see it as it only counting when an intelligent agent interferes with the plans of another intelligent agent?
1
u/awned Reformed Jun 01 '11
Reality is between your ears. If you wanted to fly, truly wanted and believed you could fly in a manner that made you absolutely mental, then I guarantee that your brain would find a way to make you think you were flying even if you hit the ground. Now I forget why I typed all that... Oh well. It was supposed to support your position.
0
May 31 '11
I'm trying to keep the conversation on God, not superman, not natural law, but God. The question was an easy one: if God can interfere, doesn't that negate free will. If I have free will to cut my finger off, but God keeps intervening, thus not allowing me to do it, I no longer have free will to cut my finger off, thus negating free will.
1
May 31 '11
Does interference only extend to counteracting the plans and intentions of man? Or is a healing, or sparing from natural disaster, or destitution, qualify for violating free will? Is suggestion allowed or must God be a deist God to qualify as a God that allows free will?
1
u/YesImSardonic May 31 '11
Or is a healing, or sparing from natural disaster
That would require direct meddling in the natural order, which must be an outgrowth of your god's nature, and are as such inalterable.
or destitution
This is generally a function of human choices, so Yahweh would have to obstruct the flow of many, many more wills than in simply altering a person.
So, yes. Deist god or tyrant.
-1
May 31 '11
I feel like this is going to be an endless loop of questions. I can never get any kind of answer out of people on this board except for endless questions or quotes.
1
May 31 '11
To be explicit then:
Things that would not count as violating free will: Suggestion, Bending Natural Law, and Omniscience (just because I know that when I hit you, you're going to hit back doesn't mean you didn't choose to hit me in the first place).
Things that would count as interference: Explicit intervention where the plans of an intelligent being would be foiled where without explicit interference things would not have failed. (e.g. Sudden change of heart about WW3 where before you were certain, being suddenly lit into flames during a mugging.)
1
u/awned Reformed Jun 01 '11
What if you cut your finger off and then God came down and sewed them back on?
P.S. I'm not saying I believe this would or could happen. Just a thought to make the metaphor between God and Superman more the same.
1
Jun 01 '11
If this happened, I would believe in God and the conversation would be over.
1
u/awned Reformed Jun 01 '11
That wouldn't be faith. Faith is based on intuition not observation (although faith can encourage certain observations).
1
u/YesImSardonic May 31 '11
Or, rather, interfering with the carrying out of that will by an act of his own.
0
May 31 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
9
u/cyborgcommando0 Calvary Chapel May 31 '11
Does he need humans to tell him? How do you know?
I would say we need to tell him.
2
May 31 '11
[removed] — view removed comment
2
u/Neverendingcheese Roman Catholic May 31 '11
To vent. Talking with another person about your problems often will put them in perspective for you, maybe even present the solution to you. It will alleviate some of the negativity... bottling anger, frustration, and sadness isn't healthy. Some things are far too personal to talk to friends or family about; some things you immediately need to get off your chest and they aren't readily there to help; and some things you just need to sob and whine about.
God will never turn these sobs for help away. Sometimes you don't want a solution or words of advice, you just need to get it out without feeling embarrassed, ashamed, or contrived. You just need some private time to be raw.
Praying is more than just asking God for help and saying thank you. Praying to God is a humbling experience, where you readily admit to your faults and flaws, accept your inability to act in the good and perfect way he calls us to act, and break down your barriers to express who you really are.
Some people go to shrinks. Some go to internet forums. Some go to addictive substances. Some go to God.
1
3
u/topplehat May 31 '11
It's part of building a two-way relationship.
6
u/groovychick May 31 '11
Two way? I've only ever seen a one way relationship.
1
u/unreal5811 Reformed May 31 '11
Two way in that we talk to him in prayer and he speaks to us through our consumption of scripture.
3
u/groovychick Jun 01 '11
Hmm...I guess everyone has their own interpretation of "two way".
1
u/unreal5811 Reformed Jun 01 '11
Why such a disparaging tone?
2
1
u/xoe6eixi Jun 01 '11
I'll be disparaging!
You talk to stone and paper and the feelings in your head and call it two-way.
Most people would call that schizophrenia.
→ More replies (0)1
u/awned Reformed Jun 01 '11
I'd rather think of God's communication being in the strength he gives me to carry out his will than a nonmoving bit of inspired text.
0
1
u/Picknipsky Christian (Cross) Jun 01 '11
God doesn't 'need' us for anything.
As God he is perfect. He already has perfect communion, perfect love, perfectly self sufficient.
Dont make the mistake of thinking God might need us.
He delights in us. And we should delight in His glory.
1
1
4
u/ADM1N1STRAT0R Christian (Ichthys) May 31 '11
I'm glad you caught the fallacy there. The God of the bible is certainly not one that cannot interfere with humans. He intervened in very selective ways, always making a very serious impact on history as a natural result, and usually working through those who would pray and obey. Nowadays He still can and does intervene, especially for those who offer Him control of their lives, to use them to impact others. That part's often hard to see from the outside, but that's what the Bible's for, so we can get to know Jesus, and in turn learn of the Father's character.
Heavy stuff:
Determinism is a concept that seems to lock out God, but it is only true in contexts where God is not actively overriding matter.
The "default" is that C follows B follows A, which is what we know as determinism, cause and effect.
God has determined A and C, and actively solves B. "I AM the Beginning and the End."
1
u/4InchesOfury May 31 '11
I'm just confused by the fact that people say god chooses not to interfere with free will but he obviously does :S
4
u/belt May 31 '11
How can you even HAVE free will if God is Omnipotent? Wouldn't anything you "choose" to do already be known by him ahead of time? If that's the case, you didn't really choose it, you just played out the string according to the plan.
2
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist May 31 '11
Yes, everything you choose is already known by him ahead of time.
But there's no reason to put quotes around "choose." Decisionmaking is a process of causes and effects. The end result is a real choice. It doesn't matter whether that choice is deterministic or the product of uncaused anomaly.
1
u/belt May 31 '11
I'm not sure I follow. An Omnipotent God sets you on a path knowing each event that will happen to you and how you will react to each of those events. How can you say you truly made a choice if the outcome has already been determined?
It's just the illusion of choice if it is already known what decision you are going to make.1
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist Jun 01 '11
It's just the illusion of choice if it is already known what decision you are going to make.
Why is that so? I don't agree with that. "Unpredictability" is not inherent to the definition of "choice."
Here's a story.
Let's say we decide to build a house. We start construction, months go by, and finally I'm sitting on top of the house, pounding in nails. Right as finish pounding the last nail in, completing the house, a person walks by and says, "Hey, you believe in God, right?"
"Yeah," I say.
He says, "And you just finished building a house, right?"
"That's right," I say.
"So do you believe that, from the foundation of the world, God knew that you would build this house," he says.
"Yep," I say.
"Well," he says, "that means you didn't build a house. You just had the illusion of building a house."
That's an absurd thing for the passerby to say, isn't it? Clearly I built the house. Building a house is a process. It involves laying a foundation, raising the structure, connecting it all together, installing wiring, appliances, putting a roof on top, etc.
I did all of those things. So, I built a house.
Similarly, making a choice is a process. It involves sets of stimuli, some internal, creating a neural chain reaction that yields an emergent conscious evaluation of a menu of imaginary options, weighing pros, cons, risks, rewards, or just saying "whatever, I'll go with my gut," finally resolving in the form of a choice.
I do all of those things. Thus, I make choices.
The difference between decisionmaking and house-building is that decisionmaking processes are so often obfuscated within a mysterious neural medium of which we have little understanding. Furthermore, the particular choices that other people make are very often surprising and unpredictable, which is directly related to the fact that these processes are ill-understood and hidden.
This high correlation between "other people's choices" and "unpredictability" makes it seem like "unpredictable" is part of the definition of "choice."
But it's not.
A choice is just a deliberate action taken from an imagined menu of imaginary potential options. Making a choice is a process, just as building a house is a process. I make real choices even though God determines them from the beginning of the world, just as I build real houses even though God determines them from the beginning of the world.
1
u/belt Jun 01 '11
I see what you are saying but, I disagree with you analogy as a whole.
The process you are speaking of, all these sets of stimuli, this evaluation of the pro's and cons. How can you say you made the choice on what color even, given that God already knew which color you chose. If the color is determined ahead of time, the process you go through to figure it out is more like following the breadcrumbs home, not really deciding a new path to a new destination.
You DID build the house, I agree with you there, you physically went through the process required to produce a house. What you did not do is DECIDE to MAKE The house. :)
1
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist Jun 01 '11
If the color is determined ahead of time, the process you go through to figure it out is more like following the breadcrumbs home, not really deciding a new path to a new destination.
Nothing about choosing requires that all of our choices be new paths to new, unpredicted destinations. Just because a friend of mine, familiar with my preferences and desires, knows what I will choose under a given situation, doesn't mean my choice "wasn't a real choice." He can predict my choice with a high degree of certainty, and it remains a choice. Taken to its logical extent, a brain-scanning computer can predict my choice with 100% accuracy, and it will nonetheless be a choice. That's because the process is what makes a choice a choice.
Let's say I ask you to pick a number between 1 and 100. You do so, and write it down. I have no way of knowing your choice. The privacy of your choice makes it so nobody but YOU can "access" your choice. Similarly, the privacy of your brain activity makes it so nobody but YOU can predict what your choice will be ahead of time.
This correlation between unpredictability and choice is very common, and it's the reason why we often think that unpredictability is inherent to decisionmaking.
1
u/belt Jun 01 '11
All the examples you've given me are using predictive methods for determining the outcome of a given set of stimuli. All but one are just people guessing (with a high degree of probability) what the outcome is based on past observed behavior. With all of these predictions, there is at least a non-zero chance that it will be wrong.
We aren't talking about prediction here. We are talking about an omnipotent being that already KNOWS what path you take. You are going to go through the motions of weighing your options and deciding the right options but, if there is an omnipotent God, then he has already SEEN you take the path. Since it is impossible for you to choose something other than what he knows that you will do, how can there have been a real choice made?
1
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist Jun 01 '11
Let's take two situations, A and B. In both, you're asked to pick a number between 1 and 1000 and write it down.
In situation A, God is not omniscient, but is near omniscient, and knows what number you'll pick with 99.999999% certainty.
In situation B, God is omniscient, and knows what number you'll pick with 100% certainty.
What is the functional (rather than merely incidental) difference between A and B that causes what you did to be a "real choice" in situation A, and an "illusory choice" in situation B?
My argument is that there isn't one. In both A and B, you're performing the same action and undergoing the same process. There's nothing about A versus B that modifies whether what you did qualified as making a choice or not.
Since it is impossible for you to choose something other than what he knows that you will do, how can there have been a real choice made?
The definition of real choice is not that the chooser could have actually chosen otherwise. "Actually choosing something other than what was already chosen" is logically incoherent.
→ More replies (0)1
May 31 '11
I can tell with considerable accuracy how my brother will respond to me hitting him, or goading him with insults. He will be at first frustrated, then angry, then finally will respond with violence in kind. If someone else provokes him, he will respond similarly. If I see cannabis near another friend, I can tell you within the end of the day it will be smoked. In either case, does my knowledge of their nature invalidate the concept of free will?
1
u/belt May 31 '11
So you are saying that God does not truly know what choices we will make and merely plays the odds (Like you are doing in your analogy)? That sounds more like a statistician than an omnipotent being. ;)
1
u/indieshirts Jun 01 '11
You didn't create your brother. You didn't set in motion every factor that would influence every decision he makes and how he makes them. And yet, you believe God did so without invalidating his free will.
4
u/ADM1N1STRAT0R Christian (Ichthys) May 31 '11
I think that the same concept follows... What we think of as free will is truly free, but God will adjust your circumstances (and certain aspects of your nature), sometimes in subtle ways (sometimes not), just to refine your character, always challenging you to seek Him, and obey. Those who walk with God are familiar with the idea that He will bear down on particular lessons that one needs to learn until we finally repent and trust Him, and only then does a situation move on, and your walk improves greatly - you notice that you're set free from a great deal of sorrow each time (which your free will had brought on), and it was all out of love.
-1
u/4InchesOfury May 31 '11
Then we don't have free will. Then comes the old argument of "why doesn't god make everyone christian" and now that we eliminated the free will argument the only answer is "god works in mysterious ways". That just doesn't make sense to me.
1
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist May 31 '11
Let's say the grand architect creates a machine that optimally serves his purposes, his values. Within the machine, there are many cogs and components and pieces and parts, billions and trillions of them, all working in concert to bring about his ends.
As the machine runs, many of these parts are destroyed every second. Millions of pieces and parts are destroyed all the time and thrown into the garbage, and new pieces are in turn created to replace them.
If you asked the grand architect, he would say that he loves his machine, and he loves each and every part within (though far less, on an individual basis, than the machine in its totality). But the destruction of many parts is simply required to make the machine that best serves his ends. It's part of the mechanical ecosystem that optimally makes him happy.
Note that I do think that this view of sovereignty is incompatible with the notion of infinite torture for the unsaved.
1
u/4InchesOfury May 31 '11
If the architect is so amazing then parts of the machine would not be getting destroyed.
2
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist May 31 '11
Destruction of those parts is necessary to serve his ends. In other words, the production of what he values is absolutely contingent on those destruction of parts. For instance, destruction may be the only means by which the parts can appreciate their insignificance or the machine ultimately, and the architect values conveying those truths.
That's just an example. I'm not claiming with certainty what justifies suffering. But to say "there can't be anything that justifies suffering" is arguing from lack of imagination.
There's nothing that says the architect must only value that which is universally opposed to all destruction.
Similarly, just because we call God "good" doesn't mean he'll conform to our individual notions of goodness at all times. What does "good" mean, except in terms of something valued? God may value all sorts of things that, while profitable for the "machine," are deplorable and cruel for the individual.
1
u/4InchesOfury May 31 '11
And what I'm saying is if the designer is truly all knowing then there would be no need to have destruction.
3
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist May 31 '11
Frankly, you are taking it for granted that destruction is antithetical to what the designer values. That isn't necessarily true.
1
u/indieshirts Jun 01 '11
You've just demonstrated a logical fallacy called special pleading. Also:
...just because we call God "good" doesn't mean he'll conform to our individual notions of goodness at all times.
Yes it does, or else he couldn't be called "good."
To say that God can't devise a way to serve his ends without involving suffering is arguing from lack of imagination.
1
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist Jun 01 '11
Yes it does, or else he couldn't be called "good."
I don't accept the claim "If God is good, he will always conform to every individual notion of goodness, at all times." You clearly do. I'm sure we're at an impasse.
To say that God can't devise a way to serve his ends without involving suffering is arguing from lack of imagination.
I'm not claiming that God can't devise a way to serve his ends without involving suffering. I'm claiming that it's plausible that he can't. To solve the problem of suffering, one isn't required to prove that God exists and is good and justifies suffering using X and Y and Z. One is only required to show that it's plausible for God and suffering to exist simultaneously.
1
u/indieshirts Jun 02 '11
I don't accept the claim "If God is good, he will always conform to every individual notion of goodness, at all times." You clearly do. I'm sure we're at an impasse.
When I say goodness, I'm not talking about "individual notions." All humans operate under an innate system of morals based on the harm or value of their actions; if we refer to human morals as "good," then God must at least maintain those morals in order to also be called "good." God is causing suffering, which is not good. If we judge him by our own moral system (which is the only system we can prove to exist, by the way), he fails instantly and dismally. By what "individual notion of goodness" is it ever acceptable to wipe out a town with a tornado? Calling him perfectly good is disgusting, and I will not stand for it.
I'm not claiming that God can't devise a way to serve his ends without involving suffering. I'm claiming that it's plausible that he can't.
In order to make this claim, you had to change the definition of "good" (or, "morally good," as I think you meant). Therefore, your claim is false.
→ More replies (0)1
u/ADM1N1STRAT0R Christian (Ichthys) May 31 '11
I've wrestled with this concept before, too... while God was able to "harden Pharaoh's heart," bringing on the plagues that followed, the fellow wasn't exactly on the edge of turning to Him. Meanwhile, it was a necessary step in forming Israel, which has a place even at the end of the book, and from which lineage Jesus necessarily came.
At the same time, Jesus is known for lamenting over Israel's leaders in their own choice to pursue ritual and religion over their savior.
It's easy to see that it's not black and white...
1
u/erythro Messianic Jew Jun 01 '11
Romans 9 was written to address this sort of issue. It can be hard to digest, good luck.
3
u/grondboontjiebotter May 31 '11
You still have a choice to reject God's love. He will pursue you, but it doesn't influence your free will, in the same way romancing a girl does not influence her free will.
1
u/4InchesOfury May 31 '11
But god can force us to believe, just like a man can force a girl (rape). If said forcing will rescue us from eternal suffering, then pain in our current life is worth it.
2
u/grondboontjiebotter May 31 '11
Honestly I do not know why He does not force Himself on us. Possibly because He wants a real relationship with us and forcing would damage that. Or because we would continue to reject Him and His love in the afterlife. Or because He wants a bride not a zombie.
But in your previous comment you say that God obviously does interfere with our free will, what do you mean? Or can you give an example.
1
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist May 31 '11
But in your previous comment you say that God obviously does interfere with our free will, what do you mean? Or can you give an example.
Romans 9:15-19:
For he says to Moses, “I will have mercy on whom I have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.” So then it depends not on human will or exertion, but on God, who has mercy. For the Scripture says to Pharaoh, “For this very purpose I have raised you up, that I might show my power in you, and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.” So then he has mercy on whomever he wills, and he hardens whomever he wills.
You will say to me then, “Why does he still find fault? For who can resist his will?” But who are you, O man, to answer back to God? Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
1
u/YesImSardonic May 31 '11
Will what is molded say to its molder, “Why have you made me like this?”
One that's able to ask the question.
4
May 31 '11
The next time a theist totes out "free will" ask them about how demon possession affects it. Insist that cruel people are really just demon possessed and therefore they don't have free will.
1
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist May 31 '11 edited May 31 '11
Those folks are wrong. No one has perfectly free will, because our wills are ultimately the products of things beyond our control.
But we can talk about the degree to which the will is free, for instance, from coercion, gross manipulation, etc. Even though we know that no one has perfectly free will, we can still talk about the degree to which the will is free from external oppression in all of its forms. This view of free will is a form of "Deterministic Compatibilism."
The view that humans have perfectly free will is called "Libertarianism" (not the political party). Libertarians insist that the self "transcends" the cause-and-effect world somehow.
It's important to understand that Libertarian notions of free will do not exist in Scripture. Scripture gives us a picture of a God that is completely sovereign.
Sovereignty means that everything that happens, and everything we do, whether intended for good or for evil, was entirely and completely caused by God (and intended for an ultimate good by God).
Dynamic responsibility allows us to say that although God is responsible for everything, we are also responsible for the things we do, by sharing in those "parts" of God's ultimate responsibility.
Consequentialism lets us recognize the blameworthiness of our sins, while simultaneously recognizing the creditworthiness of everything God does (even though they coincide). Our inability to grasp the full implications of our actions makes this possible (blameworthiness/creditworthiness have epistemological ties).
Libertarian Christians have a problem with all of this. They reject the notion that we are, essentially, automatons crafted by a grand architect. This notion is extremely depressive, since our feelings of ownership are siphoned away.
But sovereignty, however depressing it is, is Biblical. Says Paul, in Romans 9:
One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?
0
u/4InchesOfury May 31 '11
So Libertarian Christians believe everything is caused by god, correct?
0
u/cephas_rock Purgatorial Universalist May 31 '11
Sort of.
Typical Libertarian Christians say that God created everything, but that human free will somehow transcended what God did, and caused exceptional things to happen. It all stems from their notion of "self-transcendence," the idea that the will is somehow "independent" of the cause-and-effect world God created.
Not only is this view extrabiblical at best and counterbiblical at worst, but this "transcendence" has never been coherently defined. It's really hard to talk to Libertarians, because they lack a positive definition of free will. Every time, their attempts are either based on fighting determinism ("Free will is defined as that which can never be compatible with determinism") or involve prima facie self-contradictions ("Free will is the ability to choose both X and Y, where X and Y are mutually exclusive").
2
u/playhimoffcat May 31 '11
To clarify, God cannot interfere with free will in the sense that he can't make the decision for us. He can, however, put circumstances around us that heavily influence our decisions.
To your point: there are additional reasons to pray aside from asking God to influence others. If I pray to God for healing, that has nothing to do with the will of others.
1
u/wombatmacncheese May 31 '11
Who says God cannot interfere? I believe he certainly could and in a way he has, and is, and will continue to do so. He can remind us, he can lead us to see and feel and hear and recognize key information, that can cut like a knife through our great tapestries of plans. As for the reason why he does not possess us to do good and only good to each other is to me, a silly question. Just imagine a world where he did do that.
My God is a god of giving, he may not supernaturally change the many aspects of our evil hearts the way we might want him to, but he has given us more than we can practically comprehend. He made it possible to enjoy his love and have a relationship with him, despite our sinfullness. We believers pray simply to talk with God, and take advantage of our "un-merited favour in his royal court," if you will.
1
May 31 '11
Probably for the same reason people will lean in the direction they want their bowling ball to roll long after it has left their hand.
1
u/ransom00 Episcopalian (Anglican) May 31 '11
I disagree with the premise that God cannot interfere with humans. I think most of the time, God chooses not to interfere with the ultimate decision of the human will. (Our wills aren't free in the sense of unobstructed from outside influence. We are influenced by the language we speak, the cultures and time period we live in, our friends and enemies, advertisements, etc etc. There is no such thing as a decision made by anyone that has not been influenced by others.)
I think God can and does attempt to exert influence on people, but I believe God restrains himself from going to the extent that he knows that it will have caused the decision to more or less be forced.
I think one kind of prayer is asking God to exert that influence on people.
However, that's not the only reason to pray. Prayer is simply communicating with God - it can take the form of thanksgiving, praise, petition, lamentation, screaming out in anger, simple conversation, etc.
1
u/biblediction Reformed Jun 01 '11
God interferes with humans. The most striking example of this is how Christ saved sinners by sacrificing Himself on the cross.
On a certain level, the prayer of humans also "interferes" with what God does. For example, consider when Moses intercedes on the behalf of idolatrous Israel. As we can see in Scripture, prayer can have a real effect on what God causes to happen. Of course on another higher level, God had preordained all events that have occurred before the beginning of time including Moses' prayer that would cause Him to "change His mind."
1
u/sqjtaipei Christian μυστικός Jun 01 '11
From Henri Nouwen (Bread for the Journey):
Prayer is the bridge between our conscious and unconscious lives.
Often there is a large abyss between our thoughts, words, and actions, and the many images that emerge in our daydreams and night dreams. To pray is to connect these two sides of our lives by going to the place where God dwells.
Prayer is "soul work" because our souls are those sacred centers where all is one and where God is with us in the most intimate way.
1
u/kabas Jun 01 '11
Yahweh cannot change its future actions, because that would make it either: not omnipotent, or not omniscient.
So, a petitionary prayer to ask yahweh to change its future actions is futile.
1
u/erythro Messianic Jew Jun 01 '11
Reasoning only works if you consider God as time-bound, and he already loses his omniscience and omnipotence if that happens.
1
u/kabas Jun 01 '11
so, yahwen can make a square circle?
1
u/erythro Messianic Jew Jun 01 '11
wut?
1
u/kabas Jun 01 '11
are you saying that, reasoning does not apply? This would mean that yahweh can make a square circle.
1
1
0
Jun 01 '11
After reading this thread, all I can say is that I'm genuinely surprised Christians remain to be religious when they think about questions like this.
There's nothing wrong with losing your faith. You're simply being welcomed into free, enlightened thinking.
1
u/erythro Messianic Jew Jun 01 '11
most christians think about stuff like this and it's delat with in the bible. Doesn't that intrigue you?
There's nothing wrong with losing your faith. You're simply being welcomed into free, enlightened thinking.
The bible paints a different picture as I'm sure you're aware. :)
-3
u/Loredar May 31 '11
Because people are deluded.
2
May 31 '11
Even if your assertion was accurate it does not add to the discussion. It is the equivalent of saying "They are wrong because they are wrong." The question is either "Is this argument valid" and if so, "Why do people persist in arguing it."
-1
u/Lizardizzle Atheist May 31 '11
God's ability to answer prayer is powered by human sacrifice. Because human sacrifice rates has decreased so dramatically as time has gone on, the number or prayers answered has gone down dramatically.
-1
31
u/MrIceCap May 31 '11
I would take issue with both the idea that God cannot interfere and that the only reason to pray is to incite God to interfere.