Do you believe in a god that is

[SmashysmashY]

but with a little more seriouslness... doesnt the concept of free will include the ability to act on your decisions within your abilities?

If you are going to argue that to prevent someone from doing something would affect their free will and god doesn’t affect people's free will then please let me stop you before you make this error.
If this kind of god existed then your free will would have already been affected. First, since the god is all-knowing it would know what you are going to do already. If your actions are already known then you can only do one thing (the thing god knows you will do) not more than one thing. Free will would involve the possibility to do at least two different things.
But it is worse than that because god would have created all the parameters of existence with foreknowledge and the ability to change anything. That means that god not only created all the things that factor into the decision making process that you have no control over (the environment, your temperament, the possible range of human experience etc.) but this god would also be responsible for creating concepts like free will, and choice, including the existence of the idea of choice.
So all things that exist and events that occur would be contingent upon this god, and every parameter of existence could have been different, so this god would be responsible for them being as they actually are. Therefore, this all-powerful god would be perfectly responsible for its creation being precisely as it is, this includes the existence of free will, and it's limits.

youre mistaken on that one... time and space are properties of the universe
if there is an entity that created the universe it must necessarily be outside of time and space otherwise it would have to begin to exist the moment the universe began thus making it impossible to be its creator

For all we know the universe was always there, and there is no reason to think otherwise. It’s incoherent because you can’t tell me what it means to exist outside of time and space, anything that is observable exists within time and space, and there is no reason to think that anything can exist outside of time and space. Read Trish’s post carefully. There is a universe of discourse. By saying “outside of time” or “immaterial” or “supernatural” you are not just excluding some things you have excluded everything that could exist.

[muhmuh]

...

youre still not getting it the very concept of free will is the ability to deliberately act against gods will

For all we know the universe was always there, and there is no reason to think otherwise.

i suggest you read up on the universe as such and the big bang in particular since right now youre basically in way over your head

[SmashysmashY]

The big bang is not a creation story. The matter in the universe existed when the big bang occurred as a singularity. It was a rapid expansion not a creation of the universe and anyone who has taken a first year astronomy class would know that.

And furthermore the first law of thermodynamics states that matter cannot be created or destroyed.

[trish]

This discussion has lots of interesting directions to explore. In this post I would just like to look at one possible take on indeterminacy and omnicience. Imagine your body is controlled by someone else like a marionette. The puppeteer moves every limb and dictates every minute motion, often against your will. This is what it would be like to have free-will but no choice. This is what it would be like to have free-will but have no responsibility for your actions. This is the universe I believe SmashysmashY wishes us to envision, because this is the only universe that is allowed given human free-will, god’s omniscience and omnipotence. In such a universe it is the puppeteer who takes all the blame and all the credit for the actions of the marionettes. I do not believe this is an accurate depiction of the universe in which we live (nor do I disbelieve it), but it does seem to be the only picture that doesn’t directly contradict the hypothesis of an omnipotent and omniscient creator. You see, the hypothesis that the creator is omniscient is a hypothesis that places restrictions on the class of all possible worlds. Omniscience rules out the possibility that there are worlds which evolve in indeterminate ways, for a world whose future is truly indeterminate would be a world whose future would be unknown to the omniscient god! A marionette (with free-will or not) with an indeterminate future would have a future whose course was unknowable to the all-knowing god!!! Omniscience just isn’t compatible with indeterminacy and that’s why an omniscient being must take responsibility for ALL the consequences of its actions. It would certainly be morally unpleasant have omniscience.

But as we’ve already seen, omniscience isn’t a property a being can have UNLESS the history of every possible universe is determinate. Though this isn’t a proof that the notion of omniscience is inconsistent, for me it’s close enough.

Here’s a stab at a direct contradiction to omniscience (though I’m not sure I buy it myself): Does an omniscient being know how to make a puzzle so difficult even he can’t solve it?

[guyone]

Why would an omniscient being do a puzzle in the first place? Wouldn't you think he had way too much on his mind?

[North_of_60]

Thanks for this SmashysmashY. I wish I could be more eloquent in english. Sometimes, I look at my writting and feel I'm like Stephen Hawking speaking in a Simpson's episode.

Anyway, here I go...

God can only exist as an abolute idea. Absolutism goes way beyond concepts of space, time and reality. If I tell you God exist because "I" believe and "I" have faith, there is nothing more to be said. Since the human is the thinking object, he is the one who consciously feels what's right or wrong for him... First above all, human is a feeling machine, it's all genetically written, it's how he manage to survive through 15 billions years of evolution.

Death is the greatest challenge to any consciousness. Who can rationalize his own end ? Who can give sense to all this.... except God ? There must be a God cause I exist, I've lived, I've loved. Why this must end ? Why I must end ?

Consciousness is the the greatest act of the universe. It is the moment one biological unit looked at itself and said " here I am." But it is also the greatest burden, since the biological unit is meant to die, and it is understood.

Why does the deer starts running in the cold morning ?
Did it smelled the wolves closing in ?

Beliefs lives from fears and denial.
Faith as nothing to do with thruth or reality.
Yes, I'm going to die. Is this why there must be a God ?

I have great repect for spirituality and rituals, don't get me wrong.
Atheism is spiritual ; being able to understand and accept that death is the permanent and irreversible end of any biological organism is a greater spiritual act. And it lives very well under rituals.

Love and respect, good virtue, good hygien, empathy, have so much more to do with human nature and evolution than any will of any god.

The essential question is : "Why do I need to believe ?"
Once you've sincerely answered this question looking yourself in the mirror, you've got freewill... and you're an atheist.

[trish]

guyone, he doesn't have to design one or even do one, it's just a question of clashing capabilities.

[trish]

Hi North_of_60.

Atheism is spiritual ; being able to understand and accept that death is the permanent and irreversible end of any biological organism is a greater spiritual act.

If I understand you I think I agree with your sentiment here, but I do find myself bulking at the word spiritual. Atheism is a stoic act. It's just the ability to face the evidence and draw the hard conclusion that we are mortal. Neitzsche said one could judge a man by how much he had to salt his truth before he could swallow it.

[SmashysmashY]

Thank you to the people who have said nice things, but I want everyone to be sure that not all these ideas originated from me and I don’t claim that they do. I get information from various sources (books, essays, lectures) and I compile them, alter them, and put them into my own words. If anyone wants a list of my sources then just ask and I will do the best I can to put one together. Thanks.

[North_of_60]

Hi Trish,

Zeno the stoic was a very spiritual guy.

Altought my doctor insist that I moderate myself on salty food, tell me how in hell would I be able to cook such a nice and tasty "risotto" ?

I'd like to emphasize that atheism is not necessarily materialism.

Cogito ergo sum Ideas are of an immaterial existence. An atheist doesn't deny the word "spirit". Human spirit is a journey, an idea, in wich each human takes part. Each time I communicate, share infos with you or the others, it's an extension of my own self ; nothing seazable, as sand that one can't hold in his hand.

If a supreme being is to be conceptualize, it's through an absolut dependence such as Nature as conceptualized by antic stoism or Spinoza. Then you'll find as much god in science, lyrism or poetry, than the Talmud or the New Testament.

To me, philosophy and metaphysic are very spiritual.