The fall of Christianity in USA

[halbhh]

Truth is retrospective, not absolute.

A key concept you're using there, which we'd probably need to discuss some just in order for me to be able to communicate clearly what I mean to say about other important topics.

As I've experienced it, 'reality is hard' (instead of fluid or alterable very easily) -- meaning that things exist -- as they are -- independently of our being aware of them. (1*--see note on quantum mechanics aspect below) Ergo, the thing which we have a theory about and have named in our theory the 'Higgs boson' -- that thing, that aspect of nature, existed prior to our knowing anything of it. (Not only that -- it existed prior to any life of this universe, as it came into existence with this Universe, being just a part of physics; the Universe is merely physics in action (as Hawking would say)).

That is, regardless of whether we see, or know, or understand a concept about, etc. about a thing -- any kind of awareness of any sort -- some real thing: this awareness or lack thereof doesn't seem to prevent the thing from existing at all.

Nor change it. Nor modify it. Typically that is.

Now, of course that's sort of a QM question (quantum mechanics) also, but I've written a note about one important possibility below.

If you have the opposite viewpoint --- that things don't exist until we know of them; or until Someone knows them somewhere, etc. -- then in that case this would be a primary fundamental issue to discuss I think, of a lot of natural interest.



-----------
Note 1* -- Important aside here about reality (the external world) being independent of our perception/awareness: this doesn't rule out the possibilities as in some classes of speculative quantum mechanics interpretations (which might be partly correct or entirely incorrect) where consciousness interacts with physical reality, affects reality, such as by determining it's physical state (causing it to become in a definite state, the 'wave function collapse' in QM; To reprise, saying that reality is independent of our being aware of it isn't necessarily ruling out our consciousness affecting reality (which it may or may not) -- both might happen, or just 1)

 

[blü 2]

A key concept you're using there, which we'd probably need to discuss some just in order for me to be able to communicate clearly what I mean to say about other important topics.

As I've experienced it, 'reality is hard' (instead of fluid or alterable very easily) -- meaning that things exist -- as they are -- independently of our being aware of them. (1*--see note on quantum mechanics aspect below) Ergo, the thing which we have a theory about and have named in our theory the 'Higgs boson' -- that thing, that aspect of nature, existed prior to our knowing anything of it. (Not only that -- it existed prior to any life of this universe, as it came into existence with this Universe, being just a part of physics; the Universe is merely physics in action (as Hawking would say)).

Yes, that's how I perceive it, BUT there are no absolutes. "Light propagates in the lumeniferous ether" was once true in the sense we're talking about, and now it isn't. "The Higgs boson is a hypothetical particle" was once true in the sense we're talking about, and now it isn't. Nothing stops either statement from being true again at some future time. In which case it will not only be true again, but will again always have been true. Retrospective, not absolute.

Science proceeds by empiricism and induction, so nothing protects its conclusions from unknown unknowns ─ which may not exist, or may exist and be found, or may exist but never be found. There are no absolute statements ─ at least, not outside this sentence.

That is, regardless of whether we see, or know, or understand a concept about, etc. about a thing -- any kind of awareness of any sort -- some real thing: this awareness or lack thereof doesn't seem to prevent the thing from existing at all.

I mentioned that in my view 'truth' is a quality of statements and that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with [objective] reality. The question is whether "Entity X is real" is true. And as I've pointed out, the same statement may be true at Time 1 and not true at Time 2. And in each case the answer will be retrospective but not absolute.

Behind science, where unfalsifiable statements are trivial, there's another level at which things may not be absolute. One, two or all of the assumptions I mentioned may be wrong, either baldly or subtly. The universe may indeed have sprung into existence fully formed like a Boltzmann brain last Thursday. We may indeed be experiments in a superbeing's tank or Tron game, or exist only as dreams in its mind. All those unfalsifiable claims must be dealt with before any statement about our existence could be absolute.

How does God know [he]'s omniscient, that there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

 

[halbhh]

Yes, that's how I perceive it, BUT there are no absolutes. "Light propagates in the lumeniferous ether" was once true in the sense we're talking about, and now it isn't. "The Higgs boson is a hypothetical particle" was once true in the sense we're talking about, and now it isn't. Nothing stops either statement from being true again at some future time. In which case it will not only be true again, but will again always have been true. Retrospective, not absolute.

Science proceeds by empiricism and induction, so nothing protects its conclusions from unknown unknowns ─ which may not exist, or may exist and be found, or may exist but never be found. There are no absolute statements ─ at least, not outside this sentence.
I mentioned that in my view 'truth' is a quality of statements and that a statement is true to the extent that it corresponds with [objective] reality. The question is whether "Entity X is real" is true. And as I've pointed out, the same statement may be true at Time 1 and not true at Time 2. And in each case the answer will be retrospective but not absolute.

Behind science, where unfalsifiable statements are trivial, there's another level at which things may not be absolute. One, two or all of the assumptions I mentioned may be wrong, either baldly or subtly. The universe may indeed have sprung into existence fully formed like a Boltzmann brain last Thursday. We may indeed be experiments in a superbeing's tank or Tron game, or exist only as dreams in its mind. All those unfalsifiable claims must be dealt with before any statement about our existence could be absolute.
...

Ok, now it's more clear you are talking about our knowledge/perception/understanding rather than the nature of reality as it exists in and of itself.

As I think of it, our understanding/knowledge is at generally only an attempt to represent reality, and for all human beings necessarily it will be that many of our viewpoints/representations aren't at all realistic (and will or could be proven wrong later in time).

All sorts of understandings people have aren't that realistic, and most only realize that some of their ideas are guesses, and remain unaware how many are -- so that most everyone which of their viewpoints are poorly corresponding to reality.

So...all human beings necessarily have a variety of ideas/theories, only some of which are mostly in accord with actual reality, experience shows (over time/history).

The human brain is trying to understand reality, and doing an only very modest, partial job of it, just enough to function successfully for the most part in life as we know it (or usually), and unavoidably full of illusions/delusions/myths or just errors, as the brain cannot encompass all the complexity out there adequately, nor the senses sense it all, nor it all be processed, and so on.

So, your brain, mine, anyone's -- full of poor representation, a very crude picture, as if from a brief glance through fog, where only the most simple things of all are seen correctly, like as to whether it's night or day, or whether a a car is 2 feet away.

And all the rest just imagined? So it often seems at times, when we get some perspective.

But(!)....there is at least one type of knowledge we have that is entirely different in character.

In physics at least we have some representations, theories, which are breathtakingly accurate to how nature works.

Not only able to predict events in nature, accurately, that haven't happened yet.

But even phenomena that had not ever been seen, nor imagined. (!)

Surprising new predictions of things from theories that were then searched for for the first time ever and found, to the dramatic confirmation of the theory.

These theories must be translations of actual reality, accurate approximations of the real -- not just a mere attempt that is always partial (!) -- but instead a statement in a language that exactly corresponds to a hard reality. (and a reality that was always independent of our understanding it, already consistent in operation)

Basically we can know some things that are final, absolute reality, truth, how things actually are.

 

[halbhh]

...

How does God know [he]'s omniscient, that there's nothing [he] doesn't know [he] doesn't know?

This is a great question, and while I want to answer it immediately, I think it's wiser to wait until you read the post just above. So, let's come back to that question, soon.

 

[blü 2]

So...all human beings necessarily have a variety of ideas/theories, only some of which are mostly in accord with actual reality, experience shows (over time/history).

We've evolved, like other critters, to handle the essentials of our environment reasonably well. It's the less immediate questions where the problems arise ─ why is there drought, miscarriage, thunder, eclipse, bad luck, good luck ...

The human brain is trying to understand reality, and doing an only very modest, partial job of it, just enough to function successfully for the most part in life as we know it (or usually), and unavoidably full of illusions/delusions/myths or just errors, as the brain cannot encompass all the complexity out there adequately, nor the senses sense it all, nor it all be processed, and so on.

So, your brain, mine, anyone's -- full of poor representation, a very crude picture, as if from a brief glance through fog, where only the most simple things of all are seen correctly, like as to whether it's night or day, or whether a a car is 2 feet away.

Hence the attraction of reasoned enquiry, not least scientific method ─ reasoning honestly and transparently from examinable evidence.

And all the rest just imagined? So it often seems at times, when we get some perspective.

I don't know about 'imagined' exactly, but I've been learning all my life and trust I'll go out still learning.

But(!)....there is at least one type of knowledge we have that is entirely different in character.

In physics at least we have some representations, theories, which are breathtakingly accurate to how nature works.

Not only able to predict events in nature, accurately, that haven't happened yet.

But even phenomena that had not ever been seen, nor imagined. (!)

Surprising new predictions of things from theories that were then searched for for the first time ever and found, to the dramatic confirmation of the theory.

These theories must be translations of actual reality, accurate approximations of the real -- not just a mere attempt that is always partial (!) -- but instead a statement in a language that exactly corresponds to a hard reality. (and a reality that was always independent of our understanding it, already consistent in operation)

Basically we can know some things that are final, absolute reality, truth, how things actually are.

I regret to say I disagree.

In physics, just as in cartography, the map is not the territory. The rules of physics are correct only to the extent they correspond with empiricism /observation/objective reality. If they don't correspond, reality wins and the rule must be repaired or abandoned. Or as Brian Cox said, a law of physics is a statement about physics that hasn't been falsified yet.

And what is correct in physics at any given time is a matter of consensus of the most expert brains. For instance, the Copenhagen Interpretation has been the dominant paradigm since at least Bell's theorem; but it isn't the only possible explanation, and it isn't accepted by all well-informed physicists ─ just nearly all of them.

So the aspirational idea that appeals to me is not that there are absolute truths out there to be found, but that our explorations of reality, and the results of our experiments, and our reviews, corrections, restatements and shifts of emphasis are a form of progress, an advancement and expansion.

 

[blü 2]

This is a great question, and while I want to answer it immediately, I think it's wiser to wait until you read the post just above. So, let's come back to that question, soon.

Its real point is that absolutes only get us into trouble. The consequences of being omnipotent lead to similar problems (likewise omnipresent, perfect, all-loving &c &c).

If a perfect, omnipotent , omniscient god made the universe then everything that ever happens in it must be exactly as [he] always perfectly intended, so [he] has zero reason ever to visit the universe again.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

So you say.
But your reply still had really nothing to do with my statement about how it is NOW.

Yes, I do say I was educated in our local 'public' high school, and in one history class we were told a democracy can't last more than 200+ years.
To me, ' how it is NOW ' is as Jesus informs us in the 24th chapter of Matthew and the 21st chapter of Luke.
We are in the last days of badness on Earth as described in 2 Timothy 3.
These last days before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will be the one who will usher in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

Its real point is that absolutes only get us into trouble. The consequences of being omnipotent lead to similar problems (likewise omnipresent, perfect, all-loving &c &c).
If a perfect, omnipotent , omniscient god made the universe then everything that ever happens in it must be exactly as [he] always perfectly intended, so [he] has zero reason ever to visit the universe again.

Please keep in mind because God gifted us with free-will voluntary choices then everything does Not happen exactly as intended.
God intended that Adam and Eve live forever on a beautiful paradisical Earth.
God intended that we all descend from Adam and Eve and also live forever on a beautiful paradisical Earth.
If you were out working in your garden and someone came along and interrupted what you intended to do would that mean you would never return to your garden _______ or, once the interruption was over you would return to what you intended to do with your garden _________.
It was Satan who came along and threw a monkey wrench into God's garden (Eden) and Adam and Eve chose to disobey God, and this caused Adam and Eve to loose their lives, and by inheritance from fallen father Adam we inherited that leaning towards / sin, and sin leads to death.
Thus, immediately God set up HOPE for us in the first prophecy found at Genesis 3:15.
God would send a ' seed ' (Messiah) to come and undo all the damage Satan and Adam brought upon us.
So, the real point is: We can choose out of our own free-will choices to listen to Jesus or not.
This is why Matthew 20:28 informs us that Jesus' ransom covers MANY and does Not say all.
All will Not end up listening or following Jesus, but like Satan they will choose to disobey God. The free-will choice is ours to make.
Remember: the 'great crowd' of saved (delivered/rescued) people are Not a set number but an un-numbered amount of persons - Revelation 7:9,14

 

[blü 2]

Please keep in mind because God gifted us with free-will voluntary choices then everything does Not happen exactly as intended.

If God is omnipotent and omniscient and perfect, then human freewill is not possible. No one can ever deviate even by the width of a quark from what God perfectly foresaw before [he] made the universe.

If God is NOT omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, then no problem.

Well, no theological problem, anyway. But the problem of how the brain can make a decision independently of its evolved decision-making mechanisms remains. I don't see any way around that.

God intended that Adam and Eve live forever on a beautiful paradisical Earth.

Genesis disagrees with you . You'll find Genesis 3 reads:

22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good from evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"─ 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden.​

That's to say, the story never once mentions sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer or anything of the kind. Instead, as you can see, God never intended Adam and Eve to live forever, AND as you've just read [he] chucked them out of Eden to make sure they would never become immortal, and thus become [his] rivals. God shortly kicks over the Tower of Babel for a very similar reason.

(The idea that the Garden story says what you say doesn't arise until the end of the second century BCE, when it's found among the substantial Jewish community of Alexandria, who were more Graecized than the Jews of Jerusalem. Paul mentions it once (Romans 5:12) but it doesn't really become popular till Augustine of Hippo c. 400 CE picks it up and runs with it.)

 

[Ancient Soul]

Yes, I do say I was educated in our local 'public' high school, and in one history class we were told a democracy can't last more than 200+ years.
To me, ' how it is NOW ' is as Jesus informs us in the 24th chapter of Matthew and the 21st chapter of Luke.
We are in the last days of badness on Earth as described in 2 Timothy 3.
These last days before Jesus, as Prince of Peace, will be the one who will usher in global Peace on Earth among persons of goodwill.

You can repeat the opinion of your teacher all you want, that still has nothing to do with my original statement that you replied to.

As to your references of:

Matthew
24-for there shall arise false christs, and false prophets, and shall shew great signs and wonders; insomuch that, if it were possible, they shall deceive the very elect.

Luke
21 -And the people waited for Zacharias, and marvelled that he tarried so long in the temple.

What does THAT have to do with anything ANYONE posted here?

 

[halbhh]

The rules of physics are correct only to the extent they correspond with empiricism /observation/objective reality. If they don't correspond, reality wins

But this is precisely the normal scientific method, as used in physics. You are saying in effect:

"Physics" is correct only to the extent it corresponds to reality.

But, that is the physics method.

Physics is the process of making theories and then testing to see which are fitting observation, and discarding those that don't fit, and searching for ways to test more of the theories, in order to rule out more, and see which are left standing.

You have simply agreed with me. You've only stated the regular physics method.

But you've phrased it as if you disagree. ?

 

[halbhh]

Its real point is that absolutes only get us into trouble. The consequences of being omnipotent lead to similar problems (likewise omnipresent, perfect, all-loving &c &c).

If a perfect, omnipotent , omniscient god made the universe then everything that ever happens in it must be exactly as [he] always perfectly intended, so [he] has zero reason ever to visit the universe again.

In your 2nd paragraph, you've shown me you are using a certain couple of speculative theories, neither of which I see supported by observations anywhere.

For one, the speculative theory that we are in a classical 'clockwork' universe with total full determinism. That's a theory (it's not an observational fact), but it's been repeatedly tested by experiments (!). Bell test experiments. The Bell test experiments still haven't 100% ruled it out, but they have shown it cannot be correct (it is shown false already) in more and more domains, making it look very likely wrong.

Though we are not to a 100% certainty yet, so the hoary old notion of the clockwork universe is still barely alive (or we didn't find all the parts of the dead body yet...), but it has become very highly improbable.

If you hold onto it', you are going on a 'wing and prayer' so to speak, in my view, heh heh. Heh...that would be an 'article of faith' if you believe in it!

 

[blü 2]

I"Physics" is correct only to the extent it corresponds to reality.

Yes, I agree. I apologize if I misunderstood you earlier.

In your 2nd paragraph, you've shown me you are using a certain couple of speculative theories, neither of which I see supported by observations anywhere.

What I said is indeed conditional ─ IF God is omnipotent, omniscient, perfect THEN ...

For one, the speculative theory that we are in a classical 'clockwork' universe with total full determinism.

No, this part of the argument is independent of physics. God knows everything because that's what omniscience means, and being perfect [he] knows it perfectly, and that would be true if the 13 or more billion years of the history of the universe contained only purely random events.

Though we are not to a 100% certainty yet, so the hoary old notion of the clockwork universe is still barely alive (or we didn't find all the parts of the dead body yet...), but it has become very highly improbable.

The idea of QM at the foundations of our universe requires us to think of those foundations statistically rather than in the classical notion of cause. Cause still works in the macro world, but not uninterrupted.

(Nonetheless, as far as humans are concerned, randomness brings no more dignity to our mentation than strict determinism does.)

 

[halbhh]

God knows everything [of the future !!?] because that's what omniscience means

Here's where a key assumption, and quite common, but definitely not universal, comes in -- many people tend to just assume a clockwork Universe, or even if they do not, they will just assume unconsciously (many do) that omniscience means knowing all the future. (notice 'all', as opposed to 'some')

Of course, it may not mean knowing the future of all aspects of nature, for instance... If God chose to design nature to be truly unpredictable, by preference, then of course it would be unpredictable.

"Omniscient" doesn't have to include knowing all aspects of future events, necessarily. (it could mean instead knowing all aspects of the past and present for instance, which is an amazing omniscience already) To assume it means also all future things is just an assumption. I doubt many believers think much about physics. Most people don't.

Of course God definitely does know His own plans, and can accomplish them, thus He knows at least some of the most key and primary and outcome-controlling aspects of the future, at minimum. And that's where a common confusion arises I think.

From the fact alone that the most key or essential aspects of the future are indeed chosen ahead of time by God, and He will cause them to be realized -- things that actually matter the most -- this will quite reasonably cause many people to just say God knows the future. (a vague statement in a physics way)

Without getting into details of just exactly what they mean in all aspects, the other details/aspects we are discussing. But I think the main problem many have is just to assume the old common sense notion of the 'Clockwork Universe' (fully deterministic in all ways), and even that is typically just an unconscious assumption (as few know much physics anyway). Many people think that without even being aware of it being an assumption or a theory, typically. They would be surprised (most) to hear there is even any other possibility, in physics.

 

[halbhh]

...

(Nonetheless, as far as humans are concerned, randomness brings no more dignity to our mentation than strict determinism does.)

Actually, this topic, a separate one, is important in religion. The issue of 'Free Will' is a classic consideration, and seems clearly implied in the scriptures in the common bible. 'Commandments', which are instructions and requirements given to believers, make no sense if there is no actual genuine agency/freedom to choose whether to follow them. In a fully deterministic Universe, there would be no actual genuine ability for a purely natural consciousness to make real choices (but only a superficial seeming ability at most). Then true agency would necessarily require there be another aspect of the human self, such as what we call 'spirit' -- e.g., a non-physical aspect of self, or 'supernatural' then. Something not subject to said (assumed) determinism. But to me, this consideration is pretty straightforward in a way: we already seem to have a true freedom even in just the purely physical being, as nature itself doesn't appear to be (seems unlikely by experiment to be) fully deterministic.

 

[blü 2]

Here's where a key assumption, and quite common, but definitely not universal, comes in -- many people tend to just assume a clockwork Universe, or even if they do not, they will just assume unconsciously (many do) that omniscience means knowing all the future.

First: God perfectly knows all the future because God is omnipotent, omniscient and perfect and created the universe in full and perfect knowledge and intention that everything that would ever happen in it should happen. Second, God is outside the universe and can regard it as a single complex object, spacetime ─ Augustine of Hippo had that idea way back ('anni tui omnes simul stant'). Third, God is also omnipresent, existing at once at every point in spacetime (which would be the same thing as the previous point, I dare say).

Of course, it may not mean knowing the future of all aspects of nature, for instance... If God chose to design nature to be truly unpredictable, by preference, then of course it would be unpredictable.

IF god is omni THEN God knows all the past, all the present and all the future. The only way for God not to know every detail is for God willfully to maim [his] own omniscience ─ in the process maiming [his] own perfection and omnipotence. Since God is perfectly smart, I don't see that as a reasonable theological option.

Of course God definitely does know His own plans, and can accomplish them, thus He knows at least some of the most key and primary and outcome-controlling aspects of the future, at minimum. And that's where a common confusion arises I think.

Nah. Omni or nothing. (That's the problem with devising absolute attributes of God ─ they're absolute.)

blü: Nonetheless, as far as humans are concerned, randomness brings no more dignity to our mentation than strict determinism does.

halbhh: Actually, this topic, a separate one, is important in religion. The issue of 'Free Will' is a classic consideration, and seems clearly implied in the scriptures in the common bible.

But they were written back when the very nature of the brain was a mystery, let alone the details of how it works with neurons and synapses and bioelectrical interconnections, the understanding of which is likely to remain a work in progress for quite a while.

'Commandments', which are instructions and requirements given to believers, make no sense if there is no actual genuine agency/freedom to choose whether to follow them. In a fully deterministic Universe, there would be no actual genuine ability for a purely natural consciousness to make real choices (but only a superficial seeming ability at most). Then true agency would necessarily require there be another aspect of the human self, such as what we call 'spirit' -- e.g., a non-physical aspect of self, or 'supernatural' then.

We already have a basic understanding of many of the brain's decision-making mechanisms. So the question of free will requires us to invent some way in which the brain could make decisions independently of its own decision-mechanisms, , and then describe the process/mechanism that this alternative way makes decisions instead.

So I think we'll have to be content with what we have, the evolved sense that when we decide something, we in some sense directly own that decision, it's ours. That's why the interface of the law and brain physiology is interesting eg the SCOTUS decisions that adolescent brains are limited in ways mature brains are not, hence that adolescents should not be subject to the death penalty: >more here<.

 

[joelr]

Actually, this topic, a separate one, is important in religion. The issue of 'Free Will' is a classic consideration, and seems clearly implied in the scriptures in the common bible. 'Commandments', which are instructions and requirements given to believers, make no sense if there is no actual genuine agency/freedom to choose whether to follow them. In a fully deterministic Universe, there would be no actual genuine ability for a purely natural consciousness to make real choices (but only a superficial seeming ability at most). Then true agency would necessarily require there be another aspect of the human self, such as what we call 'spirit' -- e.g., a non-physical aspect of self, or 'supernatural' then. Something not subject to said (assumed) determinism. But to me, this consideration is pretty straightforward in a way: we already seem to have a true freedom even in just the purely physical being, as nature itself doesn't appear to be (seems unlikely by experiment to be) fully deterministic.

Determinism ended in science in the early 1900s with quantum mechanics. Nothing can be determined past a certain point. The universe is only probabilistic. No spirit is needed for freewill.
But lofty concepts of Gods of the universe and philosophy don't get us to pagan savior gods merged with the Israelite myths.


Free will is in scripture because as OT Professor Francesca Stavrakopoulo points out concepts in the Persian religion were introduced into the OT during the 300 year occupation.


4) Free Will

Zoroastrians and Christians both focus on the importance of individual to choose between good and evil. Although they both believe that the God is only good and is predestined to prevail over the evil, both Zoroastrian and Christian Gods bestow free will to human beings.

Zoroastrians believe that from the lowest level of ox to the highest level of Ahura Mazda, every single being has to make the choice between the Truth and the Lie. Christians, on the other hand, believe that this blessed free will is only attributed to human beings.
Early Zoroastrianism


Historical features of Zoroastrianism, such as messianism, judgment after death, heaven and hell, and free will may have influenced other religious and philosophical systems, including Second Temple Judaism, Gnosticism, Greek philosophy,[7] Christianity, Islam,[8] the Baháʼí Faith, and Buddhism.[

This is from Mary Boyce who spent much of her academic life studying with modern Zoroastrian groups and updating our knowledge.

 

[wellwisher]

The problem with discussing free will is there is no consensus definition of free will. The result is different people assume it to mean different things. The definition I prefer is connected to psychology and is described below.

Free will is the ability to choose between alternatives without any emotional or psychological cost or benefit. This definition makes choices free of determinism since determinism implies a conscious or unconscious benefit for the ego.

If you were given the choice between an apple or orange and you pick the apple because you hate oranges or love apples, then this is not free will. Rather this choice is deterministic based on a predetermined benefit you will receive or predetermined loss you will avoid. If you pick the orange but still hate it, just to show off your will power, this is still not free.

Free will is an acquired skilled based on choice and effort. It is one of the most difficult disiplines. To make free will choices, one would need to question one's motivation for picking the apple or avoiding the orange. This may be due to instinct, your own sense of taste, or it may be due to something someone said or did in your past, etc., Once you come to the source, than this memory platform can be changed in a way that neutralizes your departure from free choice. It takes a lot of work and practice. Free will is a human potential, but we need to choose to develop it.

Once you develop free will, choices can be governed by chance or the roll of the dice. I can use dice to pick the apple or orange and feel the same, either way, with the end result. Faith is a different type of determinism, not connected to the ego. It is connected to real time forces whose choices are not our own but which you accept without cost or benefit to yourself.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9;
19Though I am free of obligation to anyone, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), to win those under the law. 21To those without the law I became like one without the law (though I am not outside the law of God but am under the law of Christ), to win those without the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

Faith is a form of free will for the ego. However, this is not easy since the choices that need to be made, may have a social cost that many are not willing to pay. Paul was killed for his free choice.

 

[joelr]

T
Once you develop free will, choices can be governed by chance or the roll of the dice. I can use dice to pick the apple or orange and feel the same, either way, with the end result. Faith is a different type of determinism, not connected to the ego. It is connected to real time forces whose choices are not our own but which you accept without cost or benefit to yourself.

Paul said in 1 Corinthians 9;
19Though I am free of obligation to anyone, I make myself a slave to everyone, to win as many as possible. 20 To the Jews I became like a Jew, to win the Jews. To those under the law I became like one under the law (though I myself am not under the law), to win those under the law. 21To those without the law I became like one without the law (though I am not outside the law of God but am under the law of Christ), to win those without the law. 22To the weak I became weak, to win the weak. I have become all things to all people so that by all possible means I might save some.

Faith is a form of free will for the ego. However, this is not easy since the choices that need to be made, may have a social cost that many are not willing to pay. Paul was killed for his free choice.

In the narrative Paul was cured from blindness directly by prayer and saw and heard a vision of a supernatural being. With this evidence Paul did not need faith, he followed evidence. In religious myths the characters never actually have faith but have actual encounters with Gods.
Faith in a modern religious context is an emotional response to terrible evidence.
The idea that this faith is connected to "real time forces" is absurd because people in all religions claim the same level of faith that their Gods are the real versions. The stories about faith, personal experience and intense emotional love confirming a religion are common in Christianity and Islam but even more common and intense in Hinduism about Lord Krishna. Of course, they would all say the Christian version of faith is just a delusion.
All this demonstrates is that people can have faith and personal experience and still be misled. This makes it an emotional response.

 

[URAVIP2ME]

If God is omnipotent and omniscient and perfect, then human freewill is not possible. No one can ever deviate even by the width of a quark from what God perfectly foresaw before [he] made the universe.
If God is NOT omnipotent, omniscient, perfect, then no problem.
Well, no theological problem, anyway. But the problem of how the brain can make a decision independently of its evolved decision-making mechanisms remains. I don't see any way around that.
Genesis disagrees with you . You'll find Genesis 3 reads:

22 Then the Lord God said, "Behold, the man has become like one of us, knowing good from evil; and now, lest he put forth his hand and take also of the tree of life, and eat, and live forever"─ 23 therefore the Lord God sent him forth from the garden of Eden.​

That's to say, the story never once mentions sin, original sin, the Fall of Man, death entering the world, spiritual death, the need for a redeemer or anything of the kind. Instead, as you can see, God never intended Adam and Eve to live forever, AND as you've just read [he] chucked them out of Eden to make sure they would never become immortal, and thus become [his] rivals. God shortly kicks over the Tower of Babel for a very similar reason.
(The idea that the Garden story says what you say doesn't arise until the end of the second century BCE, when it's found among the substantial Jewish community of Alexandria, who were more Graecized than the Jews of Jerusalem. Paul mentions it once (Romans 5:12) but it doesn't really become popular till Augustine of Hippo c. 400 CE picks it up and runs with it.)

Please back up to Genesis 2:17 because it shows that enemy death would only enter the earthly scene by breaking God's Law.
Not to eat from God's forbidden tree was as if there was a No trespassing sign on it.
God's purpose ( His will ) is stated at Genesis 1:28 the reward would be Earth, enjoy endless life on Earth.
To trespass or break God's Law carried with it the death penalty. No judgement after death because death itself was the penalty.

God is Not omnipotent because there are things God can Not do. For example: God can Not lie - Titus 1:2.
Because of the gift of free-will choices, God does Not make us do anything we don't want to do, God does Not make us obey Him.
This is why the living people of Revelation 7:9 are an unknown number of persons.
As for the already dead there is going to be a resurrection of both the righteous and unrighteous.....
What they choose ' after ' they are resurrected will determine if they will be alive on Earth at the end of Jesus' 1,000 year governmental reign over Earth ends.