Free will to do God's will. Any philosophical arguments for or against this statement?
What is the point of free will if it doesn't have a moral code attached to it through the existential life we lead?
If one doesn't adhere to God's will then one has to face the consequence and, of course, God gets blamed for those consequences. It is ironic to blame God rather than analyse how the consequence came about - all due to not adhering to God's will.
If one doesn't adhere to God's will then one has to face the consequence and, of course, God gets blamed for those consequences. It is ironic to blame God rather than analyse how the consequence came about - all due to not adhering to God's will.
Comments (10)
I guess you are talking about the ruling god; a notion adopted by the men in charge in any religious sect around the world.
The true God has no reason to impose any rules on humans. God's instructions are embedded in their living body already; usually called instincts. This also applies on all other non-human living things.
Therefore, in reality, humans may, I said 'may', have, at best, just one free-will (because, as you will see, not all humans are supposed or interested in having this free-will, in the first place, because of the nature of which they are made).
Some humans can decide, in every situation, to follow their pre-programmed instincts (it is their right, we like it or not) or to live the unconditional love towards the other side, no matter who he is. Obviously, this love contradicts one’s instincts of survival and the essence of any man-made Law, said religious or else.
"I guess you are talking about the ruling god; a notion adopted by the men in charge in any religious sect around the world.
The true God has no reason to impose any rules on humans. God's instructions are embedded in their living body already; usually called instincts. This also applies on all other non-human living things.
Therefore, in reality, humans may, I said 'may', have, at best, just one free-will (because, as you will see, not all humans are supposed or interested in having this free-will, in the first place, because of the nature of which they are made).
Some humans can decide, in every situation, to follow their pre-programmed instincts (it is their right, we like it or not) or to live the unconditional love towards the other side, no matter who he is. Obviously, this love contradicts one’s instincts of survival and the essence of any man-made Law, said religious or else."
1.What do you mean by a ruling god? I only recognise the term God.
2.Hardly adopted as He either exists or He doesn't
3.One free will? Free will is free will, it is surely not sub-divided.
4.It hardly matters whether they have any interest or not but just turning your head is an effect of your free will to turn your head. Are you talking about consequences? For a consequence of your free will to happen you need your free will to create an action, surely?
5.Pre-programmed instincts? Your free will is outside of everything, it is simply your ability to choose for yourself at the moment of decision. The decision may well be as a consequence of other factors.
As hath been honked many times here already, the vast majority of reality (space) significantly undermines your assumption. If interested, please explain why that may be.
What could I say? you used hearing of a certain supernatural being who created humans just to let them obey, worship and glorify him... in short... to please him :) This is a Ruling god... much like an earthly ruler/king looking for followers and slaves.
Quoting david plumb
A human doesn't have to perceive his maker (a ruling or lawless one), his instincts which are pre-programmed by his maker (whoever or whatever is) are enough to guide him how to serve the world as all other living things are supposed to do (though each has its own role or roles).
Quoting david plumb
You are free to believe this :) but, as a programmer myself, the human living bodies are simply robots pre-programmed with highly developed algorithms (philosophers and scientists keep discovering them while they use them, isn't it fantastic :) ). Anytime an instruction of the various complex conditional jumps (in their code) is executed, it gives the impression of having free-will. After all, you are not supposed to believe whatever I say :)
Quoting david plumb
Well, I guess you never heard before that this simple action, you mentioned about turning the head, helps me discover, from its consequences, the deep inner/nature of the other side; no matter how clever he is in hiding it.
Quoting david plumb
You are right, but this free-will is called... execution of a conditional jump in a program, robotic or not. Naturally, in case of a human, predicting the next instruction to be executed after a very complex conditional jump instruction (that checks too many factors sometimes) is not easy, at all, though not impossible.
Let us return to the example you gave about turning the head. If someone smites on your cheek, the way the other side and you will react afterwards... will simply reveal an important part of the nature of each of you two. This simple but very effective, hint helped me a lot in discovering many of the people I knew, met, worked or lived with. (I said 'many' instead of 'all' because not all people had the chance to smite on my cheek, in a way or another :( ).
Some people saw in me... a realistic spiritual man... I wonder why :D
This is the problem with humans. What can the brain know about the brain. You are trying to debase the human level to that of a programmed robot, albeit an advanced one. There is so much that you do not know that your musings are limited to conjecture. Reality must be commensurate with our knowing. Lex mentis lex entis.
An Eastern version of Freewill within Natural Constraints is found in Taoism. "Tao" is often translated as "the Way", or "the paved Path", and is essentially a moral code of adherence to "the natural order", as contrasted with the laws of men . In modern terminology, The Tao is equivalent to "Natural Law". And in Western thought, God's Will is often supposed to be encoded in the Laws of Nature. That's what we mean by calling a natural event "an act of God". So, if there is no human to blame, we can always hold God responsible for negative consequences.
It's obvious that humans are not free to violate the laws of Nature, or Nature's God. Yet human laws are inconsistently enforced, so we have some leeway to do bad things. But, the only true freedom we have is to act both morally and naturally, by following "the path of righteousness". In other words, we can choose to follow either the "strait and narrow path", or the broad way" that leadeth to destruction". The only problem with that notion, is how to predict the consequences of minor actions that are not obviously good or bad. That's why most ancient sages, such as Lao Tse and Confucius, advised the development of moral character in children, so "righteous" behavior comes naturally, or instinctively. :smile:
Taoism : The Tao is what gives Taoism its English name, in both its philosophical and religious forms. The Tao is the fundamental and central concept of these schools of thought. Taoism perceives the Tao as a natural order underlying the substance and activity of the Universe.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tao
Now, aside from these 'codes', exactly how is Man to discern 'God's Will'? Is it revealed individually, or in a mass revelation? Consider: Person A believes God has revealed to him that he should build a church on a specific piece of ground- but Person B believes God has revealed to him to make sure no structure is ever built on that same piece of ground. Which is the correct 'Will' to be followed? More importantly, how far is each Person supposed to go to insure that his revelation is carried out- to point of murdering the other person? "God Wills It!" has been used to justify all sorts of bloody endeavors, so why not this one?
"An Eastern version of Freewill within Natural Constraints is found in Taoism. "Tao" is often translated as "the Way", or "the paved Path", and is essentially a moral code of adherence to "the natural order", as contrasted with the laws of men . In modern terminology, The Tao is equivalent to "Natural Law". And in Western thought, God's Will is often supposed to be encoded in the Laws of Nature. That's what we mean by calling a natural event "an act of God". So, if there is no human to blame, we can always hold God responsible for negative consequences.
It's obvious that humans are not free to violate the laws of Nature, or Nature's God. Yet human laws are inconsistently enforced, so we have some leeway to do bad things. But, the only true freedom we have is to act both morally and naturally, by following "the path of righteousness". In other words, we can choose to follow either the "strait and narrow path", or the broad way" that leadeth to destruction". The only problem with that notion, is how to predict the consequences of minor actions that are not obviously good or bad. That's why most ancient sages, such as Lao Tse and Confucius, advised the development of moral character in children, so "righteous" behavior comes naturally, or instinctively."
That makes quite a bit of sense, Gnomon.The God bit seems to be perceived as not having free will by many as, strictly, speaking it is not unadulterated free will.
"Even if we assume the existence of God (and I'm guessing you're referring to the Abrahamic one) we're also faced with three very distinct moral codes to live by: the Jewish, the Christian, and the Islamic. Is one of them the 'correct' one, or are they all equally acceptable?"
Unfortunately the human interpretation makes the answer a difficult one. All religions seem to add stuff to the basic concept of God's will and sometimes to simply benefit themselves.
"Now, aside from these 'codes', exactly how is Man to discern 'God's Will'? Is it revealed individually, or in a mass revelation? Consider: Person A believes God has revealed to him that he should build a church on a specific piece of ground- but Person B believes God has revealed to him to make sure no structure is ever built on that same piece of ground. Which is the correct 'Will' to be followed? More importantly, how far is each Person supposed to go to insure that his revelation is carried out- to point of murdering the other person? "God Wills It!" has been used to justify all sorts of bloody endeavors, so why not this one?"
God is constantly hijacked to further causes that are simply human abominations. God's will is all about good not evil, a moral code that helps us all to exist with each other. It doesn't surely include building a church etc. I hope not anyway.