• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Is there Free Will in Heaven?

jonman122

Active Member
Thor, Zeus, Apollo, all polytheistic deities with so many physical/theoretical contradictions that many of the Greek intelligentista were atheists. Or monotheists. :thud:

I liked the underlying metaphor for the vid. I liked how it was clearly represented as a horse race. You place your bet on one of this vast multitude of horses, each differentiating their beliefs...if you choose wrong, your damned. :shout

Ok...hypothetical horse-race. Your the atheist. The rest are theists....fine. You walk up to the bet-collection counter. The man in front of you looks at the list and says "One on Mahound." The other says.."One on Nazarean!" The bet-collecter looks at you..."How 'bout you, son?" You put youre gold (soul, essence, post-life form) on the counter and say "I don't want to bet on any of them." The bet-collecter looks at you oddly.."So youre not betting?" "No. I am betting. Just not on any horses." The bet-collecter glares at you...."Son, you have a 2.1% chance of being right if you place a bet on a horse. You have a 0% chance if you don't. You're waging your entire fortune on this...." You glare at him..."Well, I don't believe any of the horses exist!"

Ok. Makes perfect sense. )(

The part about dividing up the Christians into subsects is also ridiculous. The dissemination of the Church was a human error...whereas respecting the old-testament and Biblical teachings is present in all of them. The quibbling about sacramentals and nomenclatural sin is ludricious. God is referring to his people. That accounts for one major conglomeration.

The refutation of Pascal's wager is as humorous as hell, but whilst it accompanies energetic theme-music, it has more pomp that substance.

the odds are actually more like 0.2% chance of your horse winning, and the Atheist doesnt go to the better table, he just doesn't show up to the race track anyways because he knows the no matter what horse he bets on he's more likely to waste his money, so why bother?
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
Look...no one loves...your...odd sort of style...more than...I...do. But...just for a...change? How about...just...answering a yes/no...question...with a "yes"...OR..a "no"...before wafting on...in your Kerowakian metaphors...

So, here it is. Since the people in heaven will have free will, will there be sinning in heaven? Please select one of the answers below.
  • Yes, there will be sinning in heaven
  • No, no one in heaven will sin
Please elaborate on your answer here:

Sorry..................
But demanding a.... yes....no....response won't work.
Obviously you haven't really thought about it...have you?
Otherwise you would know better.
If God is willing to have His favored thrown out of heaven............
the answer to your question is obvious...................................
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
Unless it is somehow possible for them to both sin and not sin at the same time, there is a yes or no answer, and you're just being awkward.
 

Beaudreaux

Well-Known Member
Sorry..................
But demanding a.... yes....no....response won't work.
Obviously you haven't really thought about it...have you?
Otherwise you would know better.
If God is willing to have His favored thrown out of heaven............
the answer to your question is obvious...................................
Logic dictates that either there will not be sinning going on in heaven or there will be sinning going on in heaven. Until you can answer that question, with plenty of elaboration if you like, there can be no discussion on the matter.
 

Abulafia

What?
the odds are actually more like 0.2% chance of your horse winning, and the Atheist doesnt go to the better table, he just doesn't show up to the race track anyways because he knows the no matter what horse he bets on he's more likely to waste his money, so why bother?

The stats. dont matter. It was just demonstrating that no matter your religion, if you have a religion, you have a better chance than the atheist.

The atheist doesn't show up? Is the particular atheist immortal? :confused:
 
Last edited:

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
The stats. dont matter. It was just demonstrating that no matter your religion, if you have a religion, you have a better chance than the atheist.
What if God prizes rationality, or scientific thinking?
 

PolyHedral

Superabacus Mystic
What if God hates denial?
Are you deliberately trying to miss the point? It doesn't matter what you believe God wants; You could still be totally wrong, and so believing in any particular model of God doesn't really give any benefit.
 

Abulafia

What?
Are you deliberately trying to miss the point? It doesn't matter what you believe God wants; You could still be totally wrong, and so believing in any particular model of God doesn't really give any benefit.

Well that is assuming that theistic reasoning is not rational, which is irrational, becasue rationality is subjective, whereas the principle is objective.

There is no rationality that is not biased, no credible bias that is no supported by {flawed, unflawed, moronically flawed} rationality. :ymca:
 
Last edited:

jonman122

Active Member
Well that is assuming that theistic reasoning is not rational, which is irrational, becasue rationality is subjective, whereas the principle is objective.

There is no rationality that is not biased, no credible bias that is no supported by {flawed, unflawed, moronically flawed} rationality. :ymca:

The problem is when you start making arguments like this i could just up and say "well the universe was created 5 minutes ago and you have no idea because it was created with everything as it is right now." Once you start subjecting rationality to your own biased scrutiny on what it should be or is, you're entire argument becomes irrational. Why are you trying to falsify rationality rather than prove your god exists? Is it because you can't, so you have to attempt to switch the debates direction? Theistic belief is completely irrational, that is just a scientific fact, not subjective belief based upon a false premise.
 

Abulafia

What?
The problem is when you start making arguments like this i could just up and say "well the universe was created 5 minutes ago and you have no idea because it was created with everything as it is right now." Once you start subjecting rationality to your own biased scrutiny on what it should be or is, you're entire argument becomes irrational. Why are you trying to falsify rationality rather than prove your god exists? Is it because you can't, so you have to attempt to switch the debates direction? Theistic belief is completely irrational, that is just a scientific fact, not subjective belief based upon a false premise.

My God exists, well lets get this straight, I'm not a theist. :angel2:

Let me read you an excerpt from Faust (which I mentioned before):


And next, before aught else you learn,
You must with zeal to metaphysics turn!
There see that you profoundly comprehend,
What doth the limit of man`s brain transcend;
For that which is or is not in the head
A sounding phrase will serve you in good stead.
But before all strive this half year
From one fix`d order ne`er to swerve!
Five lectures daily you must hear;
The hour still punctually observe!
Yourself with studious zeal prepare,
And closely in your manual look,
Hereby may you be quite aware
That all he utters standeth in the book;
Yet write away without cessation,
As at the Holy Ghost`s dictation!


And a pessimistic philosophy isn't good for you? Emph. :(

Subjectivity not science? Ahhhh....but quantum theory now suggests that everything is subjective. It also shows that all matter exists in all states, simultaneously, unless we view it. The tree exists as a seedling, maple, log, and axe-handle, all at the same time, until we force it to do something. Why shouldn't thought exist the same way? It's firing of neurons for crying out loud, matter, subjected to all the same Schrodinger attributes....Not, really helpful, just something to think about.:D

Why shouldn't rationality be subjective? We all perceive things differently, and are conditioned early on to look at things from a standpoint. Are you Stoic, Spinozatic, Kantian, Socratic, Platonic, Atheistic, Theistic, Objectivist, Subjectivist, Locke(ian?), Humanitarian, Ecofriendly, Democratic, Republican, Independent, etc. As we perceive differently, we reason differently, combobulated with unprecented stimuli, reasoning IS subjective. We can weigh opines against each other, but only the individualistic persona can decide which is heftier...Moral Philosophy is full of it...Categorical Imperative, Objectivist, Religiously-Based, etc. Only the individual can rightly determine which is closer to verisimilitude. We can only quest for the most common idea, purify it, and go on....nihilism......eh....not so. Comomon rationality prevails, yet to base someone on the fact of it (to which I was replying), would be ludricious...if the Creating Entity reasons, and we are products of his infinitude, then omnisiciently, he could not base us on rationality, because we would all fall short of omniscience. Can the omnipotent remove his omipotence? Then too, we all reason falsely, compared to omnscience......

That brings up another question...if an omnibenevolent, omniscient, and omnipotent creator engendered the world, and its populace....then what a shody job...Can an omni-ridden ominvorce remove his omnis? It is like a paradox....Can the omnipotent weaken himself? If not he's not omnipotent? If yes, he's not omnipotent. Then what is the product of this creator...is it possible for the omni-ridden to produce such a by-product, a flaw? Consider the imploding galaxies, the failed stars, the dead worlds, the dying....can this, Epimetheanic thought be the product, this imperfection, of the omniscient?


Science cannot disprove the existence of a God, anymore than God disprove science. The anatheam, ultimanum is that while we contest the two against eachother, the empirical data has no relevance to theoretical and POSSIBLE entities, and musty texts cannot undo the theories that contradict it.

I like your reasoning too, irony and all that..."The universe was just MADE five minutes ago...." :magic:
 
Last edited:

Beaudreaux

Well-Known Member
i still have not heard the following from any respondent on this thread:

- If free will can exist in heaven, and there is no sin in heaven, then why can't it be that way here on earth???
 

Thief

Rogue Theologian
i still have not heard the following from any respondent on this thread:

- If free will can exist in heaven, and there is no sin in heaven, then why can't it be that way here on earth???

Now we go back all the way to post#28.
 
Top