If God Has A Plan For Everyone, Then Why Is It Planned For Some People To Be Non-Believers?

If there is no free-will, then why should I even bother? Why should I force myself to do anything, especialy anything I don't want to do. If I don't try, then my failure was what was predetermined anyway.

On the other hand, what are examples of something that could represent exercising my free will? How about being faced with a difficult decision, and deciding to leave it up to a coin toss, or some similar method of chance. How about a genuine act of creation---whether a work of art, or a musical, or complex theory? Did Einstein use free will to do his gedanken expeirments, and to come up with his theories of relativity?
Did Big Brother and the Holding Company use free will to come up with the acid rock intro to Ball And Chain? Or did Blue Cheer use free will to detune their guitars and develop their hard riffs when rock was not that old?

How about suicide---the question that fascinated existentialists and represented for them an exercise of our existential freedom? One could argue that it is preconditioned by a process of pain and suffering that builds up to it---and ultimately it is a mere biological neural response. But why such a drastic response that goes against our inherent will to survive. But where does that idea originate?

 

Whether or not our actions are ultimately determined, it is useful to assume that we have free will. I'm not saying that "truth" questions should be settled by considerations of utility. But if if we don't know what the truth is, and there is reasonable doubt as to whether we have or don't have free will (as there certainly is, since humans have been debating the issue for centuries) I think it makes sense to opt for free will. Evolutionary biologist E.O Wilson remarks: "Confidence in free will is biologically adaptive., Experiments by R.M. Baunmeister (2009) suggest that that loss of belief in self-efficacy leads to undesirable behaviors: increased levels of aggression and reduction in helpfulness. As a practical matter, it seems to me that people who believe in hard determinism reach exactly the point that MVW has in this post: "why bother"?

Right now, I'd like to change my eating habits and snack less. I'd like to do this because I think I'd be healthier. To the best of my knowledge, I don't know whether I'll be successful in this or not. The habit of snacking is strong. People who know me, including myself, are justified in being skeptical, just as we might be skeptical about the ability of an alcoholic to give up booze or a chain smoker to give up cigarettes. But some people are successful in giving these up, and I've been successful in breaking bad habits in the past. And if I'm successful, it's always possible to say it was determined by biology or environmental factors. Some powerful stimulus overcame my natural tendency to indulge my habit. Sam Harris might say that my concern about health was determined by my upbringing and if I succeeded in breaking my habit, it was because of that. And if I failed, well it was because my inner needs for oral gratification and comfort foods go the better of my health concerns, and a scientist could have predicted that if all the data were available. That makes for interesting philosophical discussions on internet bull sessions, but I think intuitively it can be dysfunctional for people to spend their lives second guessing their own motives. Clinically, such extreme introspective dialectics might be labelled "SPD" (Schizoid Personality Disorder"). I have exactly the same philosophy about questions involving the existence of God. If evidence and argument can settle the matter, keep an open mind. But if there's reasonable doubt either way, place your bet on the basis of pragmatic considerations: your own assessment of the best available evidence, intuition, street wisdom, and yes--perceived benefits and costs of believing. It might not be the The Truth, but it's the truth that matters.

 

Misery loves company
God loves us
God is misery
Boom.

And free will exists.

As a part of the universe you are included in the name, and identity. You influence your surroundings, and you also influence yourself.

What is free will if it is not self influence?

I mean just think if the universe was a 10 by 10 ft room packed full of people who keep bumping into each other and they are all whining about how people keep bumping into them.....Their very existence contributes to what they see as the problem.

We contribute to the direction of our immediate surroundings as much as any other thing does.

In the grand scheme of things, it is an incomprehensibly insignificant amount.

Personally, I could give two fucks about the grand scheme of things. I am here for 50-100 years and then poof. My influence during that time is what matters to me.

 

what everyone has to experience during that time matters because we all have to experience it.
and precisely as you point out, we all, contribute to creating it.

i don't buy the athiests are miserable thing though.

but i am all for being nice to whatever invisible things we might happen to run into
just not for using them, as some 'believers' seem to, as an excuse to not be nice to each other

if you were a god, who would you rather hang out with?

i know i'd rather be with a bunch of vulcans, or even klingons, then those westburouh loonies.

 

I have written elsewhere in this forum of experiments done at MIT, that are well documented, and are easy to duplicate in any laboratory----and the research has been published not only in peer reviewed papers, but publicly through a publishing house----I would give you the title, but we had flooding in our basement and much of my library is temporarily in boxes and so forth----but I have written about this before and listed the scientists behind it, and I believe the title to their book (which covers each of the experiments and includes all the details to duplicate them). (Give me some time and I will list the scientists, the title, and the ISBN Number. I have to clean out my basement and get my library back on the shelves.)

Anyway, in these experiments, they had a group of subjects imprint intention (the specific intention being specific to the experiment) into a basic oscillator, which was then used to change the ph of water, coagulation of blood, growth of insect larva, and other physical processes depending on the experiment. The results were so powerful that they would bleed over to the control experiment. They then had to move the control experiment to a different lab.

In my opinion such things are not predetermined, and provide us with an example of free will.

Furthermore, I think that quantum mechanics certainly indicates to us that we do have free will. But it also shows that nature has a direction, there is a trend in place. For example, in the technical analysis of stocks, commodities, and other tradable securities (i.e. charting), one can use the fibonacci sequence to identify support and resistance, retracement levels, and so forth. It has an uncanny way of being significant----a price will always find support on a fibonacci determined level----but that is not the only support it will have, not always the most significant support near that price level, and it is not necessarily predictive of anything more than a support or resistance----and even then it won't always find support there. It is where it will tend to find support and resistance and over time it will do it many times.

Fibonacci ratios are significant in the growth of trees, shells, mountains----all kinds of things, and it shows up in archtiecture and so forth, even without intention.

So yes there is certainly a natural path to nature, and the universe. In terms of quantum mechanics, this is what is referred to as decoherence. That waves of light and energy, and other particles, naturally strike other particles and atoms, and atoms and molecules themselves bounce around each other, temporarily determining positions in space-time. Decoherence then is nature's path.

But experiment after experiment, variation after variation, we still come down to the result that 'conscious' observation determines quantum states. Mechanical observations that do not result in conscious observations do not produce these results.

I hesitate to mention this because it always results in a long argument over these experiments with people that are really not familiar with them. People have even referred me to news articles where they have achieved altering the results of the quantum state as demonstrated in the double slit experiment after the fact by changing it back to the interference pattern (Yes I am already familiar with those experiments). But they do this without understanding the significance of the experiment or what the actual implications are.

These experiments demonstrate to me that we do have free will. Yes there are trends in place, but we have the ability to alter phenomena in our present, and our future, simply by observation (and more so through intention). And this may very well alter what appears to be in the past (such as in the case of the Wheeler Delayed Observation version). Though it is, in my opinion, the past as it exists within the 4th dimension, not the physical past---in other words, phenomena that has already been perceived, or that has already been altered through decoherence, is already determined and in our past--it cannot be changed. But phenomena, no matter how many light years across space that it has traveled, that is not yet perceived or altered, can be changed, just like that in our present. We determine, from our own sub-light speed, and physical three-dimensional perspective that we have changed the past, but what we have changed represented a single flash---an instant----in the 4th dimension. It did not change, in my opinion, the physical past.

 

plans don't depend on lack of free will. there is such a thing as statistics. i'm not suggesting there is, let alone has to be, any such thing as a plan. only that its possible existence is not in direct conflict with the individual having free will. if more people move in one direction then another, without any personally perceived lack of free will, then culture and history evolve in that direction.

that was how i percieved of the concept of a divine plan.

but the idea of non-belivers, as opposed to those who knowingly and willing misdirect belief, being condemned to anything, i don't believe you will find that as being the intent, of the scriptures of any belief.

this condemnation of non-believers, is something fanatics pull out of their ass.

 

As for the unbelievers, it is the same whether or not you forewarn them; they will not have faith. God has set a seal upon their hearts and ears; their sight is dimmed and grievous punishment awaits them.” Quran 2:1/2:6-2:10

 

And then there is the implication of "For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten son, that whosoever believeth in him shall not perish, but have everlasting life." The implication that non believers are an out-group that shall not receive such blessings.

 

Talk from fellow humans. Opposite quotes can be found too It is not God's plan to exclude the faith less or the unbelievers. People who have a problem with faith and reject it are kinda excluding themselves. People who don't believe in or acknowledge a specific concept of God, created by other people, are not excluded from anything imo, including faith.

I see why (people with) faith pisses you off :-D

 

Please provide a quotation from Christianity or Islam showing that non-believers will be granted the same boons as believers, and are definitely not somehow inferior.

God told you this? I'm basing my understanding from the quotations of holy books and the actions and speech of most religious people. Where did you determine what god's plan is?


The only true faith in God's sight is Islam.
Quran 3:19

[SIZE=small]Garments of fire have been prepared for the unbelievers. Scalding water shall be poured upon their heads, melting their skins and that which is in their bellies. They shall be lashed with rods of iron.[/SIZE]
Whenever, in their anguish, they try to escape from Hell, back they shall be dragged, and will be told: "Taste the torment of the Conflagration!"
Quran 22:19-20

Believers, take neither the Jews nor the Christians for your friends. They are friends with one another. Whoever of you seeks their friendship shall become one of their number. God does not guide the wrong-doers.
Quran 5:51

The unbelievers among the People of the Book [Bible] and the pagans shall burn for ever in the fire of Hell. They are the vilest of all creatures.
Quran 98:6

I have no problem excluding myself from faith, as well as polio. The issue at hand is whether faith has a problem with ME, to which the answer is an undeniable YES.

You seem to have no problem excluding yourself from a faith in Poseidon, right? And Mithra? And Ba'al? So why is it something of an "issue" when I take it one god further and exclude myself from faith in the judeo-christian creator god?

“He that chooses a religion over Islam, it will not be accepted from him and in the world to come he will be one of the lost.” Quran 3:85



So again Asmo, this comes to, do you first decide what the facts are about a religion and then speak your opinion based on what you decided, or do you actually go and check the facts, and then base your opinion on what is true in reality.

You can be one of those people saying "guys, come on, islam is a religion of peace", or you can be an adult who is part of a global conversation to better the world.

You help nobody when you perpetuate myths about religions, when you spread lies out of a will to not rock the boat. It's a kind of dishonesty, do you understand? It's difficult to take you seriously and it makes me wonder what your motives are behind defending religion from even an honest appraisal. Why should it be exempted from this?

 

Excuse my butting in but this doesn't really address the question in a meaningful way. There is no such thing as a non-believer. Your question is about belief in specific dogmatic parameters. On the effects of belief that are available to all, "if you believe and do not doubt you can cause a mountain to pick itself up and throw itself into the sea." This is applicable to any fundamental conviction. Apart from any supernatural effects this statement may imply, certainly ones level of conviction can cause one to testify to preposterous things and live your life in a way that reflects that. The same is true of convictions that are more soundly based, So in some christain terms at least if you don't believe that man can achieve a higher degree of communal functioning or that such is beneficial, you will not seek to organize your life in that way. From this perspective the statement that you will perish if you don't believe is not a programmed exclusion but speaks to the practical effect of the psychic phenomena of belief itself on the way we perceive and react to the world.

 

Asmo said that there are quotes in the major world religions which say that unbelievers are just dandy. I asked him for those quotations. I'd say that's addressing the question in a meaningful way.

You are conflating your own new-age interpretation of christianity (which btw, I have never heard from anyone else, ever, in all my travels) with the faith which is practiced by the vast majority of those who call themselves christians.

In what context is there "no such thing as a non-believer"? Certainly not the muslim context. Their religion is heavily based on creating conflict between muslims and non-believers.

"Specific dogmatic parameters" and just what the hell do you call religion? It's nothing BUT dogmatic parameters lol! Even your own self-chosen parameters, which are so broad as to allow practically anything under the sun, are dogmatic parameters which you have arrived at through theology and reflection.

You also enjoy sharing a view of your own religion which is simply not the religion to which I am referring, and to which most people who call themselves "christians" would even acknowledge as a proper understanding of scripture.

Please tell me how this quote is about how people who don't believe are suffering from the practical effect of psychic phenomena? Because when I read it, I see "those who believe in other gods, are not as good as those of you who believe in this god of which i speak" . . . basic, recurring, run-of-the-mill, dogmatism:

Do not be bound together with unbelievers; for what partnership have righteousness and lawlessness, or what fellowship has light with darkness? Or what harmony has Christ with Belial, or what has a believer in common with an unbeliever? 2 Corinthians 6:14-15

 

Writer, I'd say you're also perpetuating the myths of religion by denying them so. Your propositions rely on the structure of a fallacy.. intellectually elaborated and executed with finesse, but you're not helping anything go away, rather just locking horns with it.

It's impossible to put the genie back in the bottle. From my point of view it's much more efficient to attempt to integrate the core truths to some form of abstract reason that complements modern science.


Judo.

 

And regardless what Asmo said, I am referring to the question in the form you ask it regardless of context in the light of philosophical rigor. It is an aside not directly addressing your ongoing contention with Asmo and I asked you to excuse me for butting in.

It is true that you are fond of characterizing what I say as sharing my view of my own religion but we have discussed this before. I haven't discussed my beliefs and I abhor the idea of creating a new religion nor do I adhere to any as a matter of faith. I have explored some as a matter of interest. I apply reason in the light of practical application to the words that are written in conjunction with understanding the meanings of words. It doesn't matter if the words are from scripture or from a child's fairy tale. An exercise in reading comprehension without inserting a prefix religious context.

Again regardless the way it is written, referring to your last entry of scripture, There is no such thing as a non-believer but there is such a thing as not adhering to a particular belief. So in content or practice we are talking about beliefs, not believers. A a practical matter what congruence can we find in competing views.

In as far as it might be said that I veer from mainstream christianity, the statement that by this they shall know you are my disciples, that you love one another, preempts any diademic adornment you can imagine.

 

It is suggested that I rely on dogmatic parameters. This is not so. I rely on axiomatic reasoning. If my parameters allow for everything then they are not dogmatic. On what axiomatic bases do I allow for everything. All things extant are lawful or fundamentally present. On what axiomatic basis might I allow for almost everything, not all things are helpful and helpful is a matter of desired aim and timing.

In reviewing what I have just written it requires some adjustment. It is true that I am dogmatic in being inclined to lay down principles as incontrovertibly true. These principles however serve not as an end but as axiomatic basis for further reasoning.

A definition,

1. 
   An axiom or postulate is a premise or starting point of reasoning. As classically conceived, an axiom is a premise so evident as to be accepted as true without controversy. The word comes from the Greek axíōma (ἀξίωμα) 'that which is thought worthy or fit' or 'that which commends itself as evident.'
   

 

BUMP

 

done so

 

I guess doctors perpetuate the myth of bodily humors when they learn about their history in medical school?

I'm not doing any perpetuation. We are swimming in an OCEAN of religion on this planet. To not acknowledge it, because that would be "perpetuating" it, is some kind of willful blindness to the facts.

What I perpetuate is critical thinking and rational analysis. A regard for evidence.

The people who are perpetuating religion, are the ones practicing it and believing it.

If you can explain what fallacy I am committing, then I will conceded that I am being fallacious. Please tell me and everyone here which fallacy I am committing.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Has it occurred to you that the only way to make religion go away is to lock horns with it until either religion destroys the entire planet or more and more people are shown that religion is utter bollocks? (more and more people are seeing this btw, so it appears my "locking horns" strategem is working. It appears to have worked well for the numerous great secular minds in the past who were part of the reason why you, today, cannot be executed publically for believing in a religion other than the state religion)

Now change the word "religion" in this dialogue to the word "leprechauns" and let me know how clever and powerful you think your argument is.

What "core truths" would you have us integrate from abrahamic religions?

And if we are having to "massage" the religions, and quietly sweep away their more ridiculous credos, then are we not tacitly admitting that they are utter bollocks?

Whose toes are you afraid to step on??? The genie and bottle argument is weak and is a capitulation to theocratic will. The genie never WAS in the bottle. Religion is as old as man looking up at stars and his neurology weaving together patterns of meaning based on his other life data.

There is nothing to preserve, or conserve. Anything, and everything, that was ever concocted in any religion, ever, can be discovered, today, with evidence and reason, instead of "on faith". Let's go this way.

Let's choose this path.

 

If you sweep away the more ridiculous credos then you are not left with total bollocks. Take early medicine for example. We sweep away it's ridiculous credos and we are left with more reliable medicine. A core truth is something inherently true about the human condition and could be demonstrated in the example the measure you give is the measure you receive or the value you accord something determines it's value to you. This is evident in your evaluation of religion. Religions and their effects on peoples lives display many features of which you are either unfamiliar or for some other reason do not accurately account for. You agitate for reason and root for a solution based on an unreasonable premise that religion is total bollocks. Reason seems to be curiously absent where absolute disdain holds sway. You want to fight the stupidity of religion you have to go through the people who feel slandered by your characterizations.

By the way the statement religion is total bollocks is the logical fallacy you are committing.