People who say God gives us free will are liars.

Observations are now acts of "evasion"? Must mean that scientists do a whole bunch of 'evasion'.... which would support my saying that their tendency toward making excuses is valid. Also, I notice (as a further observation) that you made a quotation but did not provide a source of who or where that comment can be found other than from your mind.

As a further observation: I notice you are making a positive declaration that you did not enclose in quotation marks "Trolls live under bridges". Now where is the proof of your claim? No proof? Are you then perhaps living in that "magical fantasy realm"?

 

I honestly want to, truly. I just have a hard time not defending myself.

Not at all. I am always open to possibility. Possibility is part of why I enjoy science and philosophy so much. However, when one evaluates a possibility but subsequently dismisses it for whatever reason, many people somehow still view that as not being open. Being open to possibility does not mean that one must always accept all presented options, just that one must acknowledge and evaluate all presented options. Which I do.

As an example, I was raised within Christianity. At one point I considered myself a Christian. But as I got a bit older, I evaluated that position and have since dismissed it. So I wasn't not open to the possibility. My decision to dismiss it has only been reinforced over time through experience and wisdom.

That aside, the concepts that I have been discussing are self-limited, which is my whole point. Specifically, omniscience allows only one possibility, that which infallible knowledge says will happen. It cannot change or be incorrect.

I agree with the possibility of a multiverse. But even if every possible outcome to a scenario occurs spread out through each of infinite universes, there is still only one outcome per universe.

An omniscient being would see all possibilities throughout all universes, but would still also know the outcome to a particular scenario by this specific instance of "me" in our specific universe.

 

You are not defending yourself when you just insult someone. If something is totally bonkers, just say so and move on.

Well, the personal stuff is up to you.

However, in the multiverse, its simply not true. One, you have to realize that there really are a finite number of choices you can make. For example, if you wake up in the morning and have to go to work, your choices are pretty much stay in bed and miss work or get up and, at some point, walk out your sole bedroom door to get to work. At each point, as we define our goal and our actions to achieve it, our choices are limited. I mean you could throw yourself out the window I suppose, but, you cannot make gravity stop and fly to work for example.

That means the scope is not infinite and all possibilities are KNOWABLE.

An omniscient being can cleary see all this out there, and quite frankly, f he also knows your thoughts knows your choices as you make them. He knows your mind as you do. So, he know AS you make the choice and knows you well enough to know which choices are likely.

You still have choice, because not al possibilities are singular.

It would know ALL the possible outcomes, and, when desired outcomes are possible, we do see God influencing that process do we not? Callings, miracles, etc.

But it again comes down to why. Bear in mind this is abstract, but does make the point.

Think about Satan and what he is? He is a fallen angle. God created everything, he imbued us with knoweldge of God and his wisdom. He follows HIS rules because they are THE BEST way. Yet Satan and his minions rejected this way, and the rest of God's followers imbued with knowledge but no real understanding. That is why the universe is created. To allow God followers a chance to see the reality of his teachings in a temporal setting so that when we RETURN to him we understand the knowledge he has imparted to us. Its eternity hes concerned with.

Think a bit like counterinsurgency in Iraq. We were on the wrong track, and GEN Peatraus and GEN Mattis sat down and thought throught the process, they were then selected to lead the reform effort. Initially, GEN PEtreaus allowed subordinates to see, study, and adopt on their own, knowing that subordinates who both understood and believed that the course would be successful were the ones that would ultimately make that a reality - toward the end, he pulled the remaining ones in with simple obiedence to authority - but that stage of REAL understanding is important.

Its no different for God. He can hand us the knowledge, but what he wants is REAL understanding. And, being omniscient, he knows how to get it to us.

 

I didn't ask you what gravity WAS I asked you what its mechanism is because you have stated there is no God. That statement presumes an understanding of how the universe works and gravity is one aspect. So far you have provided exactly '0' explanation of the MECHANISM of gravity. What is it made of? Is it a wave? Is it a particle? By what physical MECHANISM does it exert its force?

Please, just cut the BS and answer the questions. (I bolded them because it seems you keep ignoring them).

Yes the Earth exerts a gravitational field as does every mass in the universe, that is not the point. That is an OBSERVATION of gravitational force. The actual MECHANISM of gravity is unknown and gravity is a key force in the universe. Therefore....for you to state there is no GOD pre-supposes that you have an intimate understanding of how the universe works. I am asking you for proof of that knowledge.

Please....Stop with the obfuscation and answer the questions. What are those strings or what is that 'grid' made of? What substance is that 'grid' representing? Neutrons? Dark matter?....How does it work to form an attractant? These are the questions you need to answer to show you have enough knowledge to state there is no God. So far you have failed completely.

You can't know there is no creator because you can't explain the universe. You have no knowledge to back up your beliefs. Therefore, your Atheistic views are nothing more than your own personal beliefs exactly the same as those who believe in a Creator.

 

I love your example emphasized above. Your example shows a requirement of "experience" and "wisdom" to be present in order to establish that "reinforcement" of decisions that were made. That is just awesome in the truest sense of the term 'awesome'.

So, it is pointed out by you, a non-theist, that 'experience' (speaking on a personal level... as only you experience what you experience) is a primary ingredient to justifying your decisions, and (definitively speaking) that experience is also a factor in the construction of 'wisdom'. Understandably, 'knowledge' would also be a requisite ingredient to the construction of 'wisdom' regarding any subject or decision.

What is truly interesting though is the issue of the 'experience' factor. It seems that particular groups of people are not willing to accept the 'experience' of another group of people pertaining to a particular subject matter. In particular, religious experience is scoffed at by some other groups, yet that 'experience' is a requisite ingredient for 'wisdom' regarding that subject matter of 'religious experience'.

Why would one group (group "a") desire to reject the experience of members of another group regarding 'religious experiences' simply because group 'a' did not experience the same experiences?

 

I was attempting to explain why the multiverse theory is irrelevant and remove it from the discussion. It merely adds complexity that is unnecessary.

An omniscience being knows all things pertaining to all universes, but none of that applies to "us" except this one universe in which we reside. It doesn't matter what "choice" an alternate "me" makes, but only what happens to this me, in this universe. There may be a "me" in many universes, but they are separate entities who have no consequence over my choices in this universe.

We can ignore the oranges.

I agree.

But omniscience would mean he possesses all knowledge at any point in time (or at least how we perceive it - I can only logically assume that an omniscient being would not perceive time the same way). In other words, he wouldn't only know my actions as I choose them, but know the outcome of all my future actions.

With omniscience, they are in this universe.

Imagine a time-line. Point A is me driving down a road. Point B is me sitting at an intersection trying to decide whether to turn left or right. Point C is me, after the decision, now driving down the road to the left.

An omniscient being can see the entire time-line all at once, but I cannot. While I'm at point A, that being already knows where I will be at point C. Since this knowledge is perfect, the time-line is carved in stone, it cannot change. So because C is already known, once I reach point B, the only possible outcome is for me to turn left and reach point C.

If there is only one possible outcome, I never really had a choice.

I don't know how else to put it, this is literally a simple as it can be explained.

I understand why the concepts of both free will and an omniscient God are important parts of Christianity, and I understand why you hold to them so strongly as they are so core to your beliefs.

I also believe we have free will, but as you know, I'm an atheist, so I believe this for different reasons (which is what I have been talking about - law of noncontradiction and so on). But even in a world where Christianity would be true, logical tautologies are still inescapable and cannot be ignored.

Let me ask this... You just claimed that God sometimes influences desired outcomes. If this were true, wouldn't that immediately invalidate free will? How can free will be conditional or anything less than absolute?

 

Experience is an important part of anyone's life, but this is not exactly a fair assessment.

In the scenarios you are referring to (at least what I assume you are referring to), atheists are not really scoffing at the religious experience itself, but rather when theists reference those experiences as scientific evidence. It's just a simple matter of by the very definition of "scientific evidence", personal anecdote does not qualify, whether religious in origin or not.

 

Assuming you have children: did you or do you educate your children in such a manner that would influence them that they do possess free will?

Have you ever attempted to influence the decisions that they make? Have you ever or would you ever attempt to intervene in their affairs in such a way that it would not allow them to take that course of action which they deemed appropriate? Are you or were you being hypocritical in the instructions that you gave them regarding their exercise of 'free will'?

 

Except what I am talking about is the reality of the multiverse as describes in the Big Bang, not the premise that your choice creates new universes. It is to highlight the reality that, at one point of creation, multiple universes are created. We are but ONE extension of that process. If ONLY one choice is allowed - then there shourl ONLY be one universe, do you see?

Why? If you know all things, then you know where dark areas of choice are, things yet to be determined by choice. Again, the premise here is that everything already laid out if you know all things, but you can know all things and know where the choices are in that process.

You can know wheer all the choices intersect, if you will, and see multiple branches from that confluence of choices.

If you doubt it, think about a God that set in motion creation, created multiple universes, favored one and all its actions and accidents to arrive here at this point, after billions of years, just to allow your spirit a body and to learn the truth of his wisdom.

That my friend is omniscience.

The reality is that the choices we make confirm of deny his wisdom, but have no real chance of effecting the destiny of the universe, his creation.

That my freind is omniscience.

A multiverse would pointed demonstrate the opposite.

Once again, you assume that ONLY A and B are possible. Omniscience merely means you see the reality of ALL possible choices, because we do not have an infinite number of choices (its finite), and that you discard the other possible branches once the choice is made.

Again, as simply as I can state this, the error is in thinking that ONLY one way is possible.

Then you will also know that some things are on faith, that we do not understand HOW God does what he does, we accept that he does it. And in things like omnisceince, its a leap just to be able to grasp something that immense, a power behind the creation of the multiverse, much less argue it from the point of view of.

You ar enot going to get scienctific precision on this.

Let me give you a couple of things here.

I have rank and authority in the military. The reality of decentralized modern warfare is that our 19 year Soldiers are often out alone, and acting within guidance. They sometimes stray from that guidance, sometime to benefit (they see opportunities) sometimes not (sometimes they are 19 year old kids). When they do screw up, or appear likely to, we place extra control on them to prevent or minimize these chances, yet sometimes they do anyway.

The still have free will.

Seat belt laws state you must wear your seat belts, sometimes people do not anyway. Interevention does not remove free choice, and, as we see with the conversion of Saul (Paul) the choice to walk away was with his to make - he chose what he did (and we see the benefit of that decision).

You speak about beliefs, but, I am not sure you really understand them. In my personal conversion from atheism to Christianity, from practcing his wisdom in multiple places, is that of the reality of choice. At any moment, an all powerful God can sieze control of you and FORCE you to follow his wisdom. Its' not what he wants, he wants real understanding of the power of his wisdom and word, and the only way for US to truely understand it is to put it into practice and see the benefits of it, or negatives of abandoning it.

Remember, an all powerful God who has the ability to do reject his rules follows them anyway - because they are the truth, and they are wisdom. Conceptualize God, alone in a universe uncreated, and now imagine what human life would be like if you were alone and bereft of anything?

That is why God created all things. To have things to love and to be loved by, to share the benefits of that creation bith with him and each other - and act fo charity and great wisdom that we have as his benefactors here on earth - a chance to really learn and understand what he is teaching us. The centrality and importance of love is born out in free will.

As simply as I can state this, as I have come to know God, I know that freewill is a charitable gift of kindness, and love, one granted so we can really particpate in the love and fellowship of him and each other as he intended.

I would also ask you to question your own beliefs, you are an atheist. There is as much pressure to reject freewill in an intellectual sense as anything else. Yet, you advocate for logic against freewill, even as you accept it. How much of this is because you reject God, and therefore the very premise of omniscience?

Then really does come down to a question of why all this? To be random bits of atoms clumped together for a time and then return to total randomness? Without omniscience, that is all we are.

 

I'm not an infinitely powerful God who created existence itself and gifted free will to all life. I'd say trying to compare the two is a bit disingenuous.

Besides, what child truly has free will from their parents until they are old enough to move out on their own?

 

In the alternative, are you suggesting that God does exist, and that God gifted 'free will' to all life'? If not then your following statement is disingenuous.

See above.

Then you do admit that 'free will' does exist. That is good. Did you provide that 'free will' which the children will experience once "they are old enough to move out on their own"? Where did that 'free will' come from? For that matter, where does the individual 'will' proceed from?

 

The particular multiverse theory doesn't matter. Even if our universe is only a part of a whole, we can be viewed independently as actions in one universe does not affect the others, otherwise, everything would logically still be considered one universe. We are separate. With omniscience, only one possible choice is allowed per universe.

All this multiverse talk just seems to be a way to skirt around the issue though.

Because the knowledge is infinite. Though I understand that infinity can sometimes be difficult to conceptualize.

But with infinite knowledge, there would be no "dark areas of choice". All things are already "determined".

Not at all. I'm only presenting a scenario if A and B occur. The point is, an omniscient being would know if/that all points occur. So my scenario poses questions about logical noncontradiction of future events once I reach point B. Meaning it has already happened, so there is no need to speculate on other possible actions before arriving at point B.

But that's not true. Omniscience is infinite knowledge. It's not just all possible choices, but also which choice ultimately occurs.

Maybe there was some miscommunication or misunderstanding, but this isn't really arguing against me.

Again, it's not about perceived possible choices, but rather about the choice that ultimately occurs.

I can appreciate your beliefs, and I have humored your context with God up to this point, but it's getting too far from the logical concepts. As I stated before, my point really does not involve God. Logic and noncontradiction is really what I'm interested in.

 

No, it's a hypothetical.

I do, in fact, believe free will exists, but not for the same reasons you do. I've never been arguing that free will does not exist, only that it logically could not exist if omniscience exists.

No, I just no long hinder it.

Nature. It wasn't "given" by anyone or anything. It's simply a condition of existence.

 

It is. It IS the reality that MORE THAN ONE OPTION IS AVAILABLE. And if more than one option is available, then we have choice.

Interetsingly enough, the multiverse is often used in circles as a method of denying God, yet this instance, when it comes to prove that he may indeed be there - its just skirting the issue.

So?

Infinite knowledge is just that, and knowledge of all things done, yet to be done, and YET TO BE DECIDED.

Not if we know they are there, we see ALL THE POSSIBILITIES, and simply discard the ones that are no longer valid as decision and choices are made.

Again, you are just ignoring that the number sof choices available to us are finite, while knowledge of the choices BY OMNISCIENCE, is infinite. Infinite beats ANY FINITE NUMBER. That is just math.

And the assumpting is that only one choice can be made, and that is you make a different choice you somehow change reality. That is not how it works. Its a illogical assumption.

Only when id dscards the UNUSED branches.

See above. :shrug:

Well, you hve your logical work around.

And you are not 'humoring' my God. That is a cop out, and quite frankly an insult.

Omniscince involves God and last tim I checked this was a religion section? No.

You are asking us to bascially invalidate our faith for your 'humor'?

It comes down to why, and when you step by that, well, you miss the whole point that if we are here with purpose, it requires omnisceince DOESN'T IT?

Now, I have humored your atheism up to this point, but when you refuse to explore branches that may lead somewhere, well, then, just like I claim, this is about YOUR affirmation of atheism, not about the reality of omniscience.

 

Yet you readily accept many hypothetical things found in science? Besides your statement is not a hypothetical. "I'm not an infinitely powerful God who created existence itself and gifted free will to all life." That is a past tense verb.. denoting action that has already been accomplished. Your statement does not give any indication of being a hypothetical. It only contains the fact that you are NOT one that could be referred to as an "infinitely powerful God..." and the alleged 'fact' that this 'God' "created existence itself and gifted free will to all life'.

Then we Theists can feel free to use your name as a reference as a non-theist that 'free will' does exist?

That is not a logical statement. You have not experienced omniscience, nor have you observed omniscience, nor have you any real comprehension of what omniscience really is. Therefore, your conclusion that 'free will could not exist if omniscience exists' is a false claim. You have grossly violated the laws of the scientific method and have turned your focus on conjecture.

Not true. Once you step out onto the playing field of 'influence' you have engaged in an attempt to sway or alter the 'free will' of another person.

Nature deals with things that are temporal and tangible. Are you now suggesting that 'free will' is a tangible item that can be observed and tested and measured?

 

No, it was not a choice. Jesus appeared to Paul and before Paul even knew who It was, he declared Him Lord. We don't choose to perceive what we experience with our own senses. It just happens.

Now for my senses, never have they perceived of any vision like what Paul had on the way to Damscus.

I think you picked a bad example.

But you're pretty much touting an indefensible position anyway.

So do what you must. Ask questions instead of trying to answer any.

 

We don't? What about a person who enjoys visiting porn sites on the internet? Those sites 'just happen'. The person no longer has control over the computer and the sites just start popping up on the monitor? Yeah right.

Yet you draw a distinction that does not preclude the possibility that you might have had some other 'vision'. Interesting.

I think you are offering a very poor argument.

Why is that position 'indefensible'?

On another subject. Are you a Christian? If you are, then I might have misjudged what you were saying. Please clarify your spiritual status.

 

To be honest, I don't really see how the multiverse theory can be used as an argument either for or against God, but I digress. And again, I'm not talking about God anyway.

By "skirting the issue", I am referring to introducing extraneous information. The idea that there may be alternate universes is absolutely irrelevant. The possible options are to turn left or right. I turn left here, but go right in another universe. So what? How does that affect me in this universe? Did it have any bearing on me going left? Did it somehow influence that outcome?

It's just extra unnecessary complexity, and can be removed from the discussion to keep things as simple as possible. Let the oranges go, man.

Sort of, but part of my point is that to an omniscient being, everything is already "decided" from our perspective, even future events. If you omnisciently know everything I'm going to do next Tuesday, even though I have actually done it yet, it has still been "decided". You already know the outcome.

Yes, this is how we see things, but not how an omniscient being would see it. That being would already know that possibility #3 occurs before we reach it, and thus all those extra possibilities are already removed for us. Yes, we can still "see" them from our perspective, but since we cannot choose any of them but #3, the others are only an illusion to us. We absolutely cannot do anything other than possibility #3 (infallible knowledge), which logically means that the other possibilities never actually existed to us. They were never an option.

It's like being in a room with a bunch of doorways. Every door has an impenetrable glass plate blocking it, but one. You can see what's through each doorway, but there is only one you can actually go through.

(Sort of - that's the closest analogy I could come up with in a short time, I'm tired.)

No. It's not an assumption, and I cannot make a different choice.

What part of "infallible knowledge" is so hard to understand? If an omniscient being knows I will turn left when I reach the next intersection in 30 seconds, I must turn left. I cannot turn right. Period. Turning right was NEVER an option, lest the perfect knowledge be imperfect, invalidating the omniscience.

I don't want to hear anything about a multiverse, it's irrelevant and just a way to avoid directly addressing the above. The scenario in the above paragraph is what happens in THIS universe, and that is all that matters.

And we were doing so well. Even if we weren't really getting anywhere, did you notice that we were actually having a real discussion? None of this stuff was anywhere in sight, why return to these old habits?

I didn't insult you at all. What I meant was, I have been telling you for some time that my arguments have nothing to do with God (or atheism as you suggest), but since you kept insisting on framing the context of the discussion around God, despite my objection, I just went along with it. It just got to a point where we were so far from the core logical concepts that I wanted to take a step back.

That's it, no insult. And please stop presuming to tell me what I mean/believe. Only I can determine that, and I tell you.

Omniscience does not have to involve God. Omniscience can exist as a concept without the necessity of attaching it as an attribute to God. It can be discussed by itself as simply an idea. And this is what I have been trying to do all along.

Not that this has anything to do with the logical contradictions of omniscience, but...

Perhaps we are not here with purpose. Perhaps we are simply here.

 

Since I'm completely exhausted from your BS, I'm going to take Neutral's advice from this point and just ignore everything you say that's "bonkers".

Normally I might say yes, but I must decline. I do not trust you (you specifically, not all theists). You are notorious for being deceptive and dishonest, and I have no doubt that you will spin or twist something into a meaning that I do not agree. So no, you may not reference me in this manner.

Here you go, last time...

Law of noncontradiction. Tautology. Logical Axiom.

Now, I expect not to see this again.

Huh? When they live with me, I logically limit their free will (don't color on the walls, be home by 11, etc). Once they leave home, I no longer have the control to sway or alter their free will.

No. As I said, it's simply a condition of existence. It is an inherent attribute of all living creatures (with brain function high enough to make conscious decisions).

 

Oh, so knowing the meaning of words that you use is "bonkers" and you wish to stay ignorant of the very words that you use? Interesting.. because that clearly shows that you don't know what you are talking about.

OK, then I will simply reference the post number.

See "this" what "again"?

Then why do you attempt to sway or alter the 'free will' of other adults with your absurd comments? As for your children who have left home due to age: You surely jest regarding your lack of attempting to influence them. One of them comes to you with a problem and says "Gee Dad, what would you do?" Ignore their request?

Where is your proof of that claim? Prove that 'free will' comes from 'nature'?

 

Meanwhile, Saul was still breathing out murderous threats against the Lord’s disciples. He went to the high priest 2 and asked him for letters to the synagogues in Damascus, so that if he found any there who belonged to the Way, whether men or women, he might take them as prisoners to Jerusalem. 3 As he neared Damascus on his journey, suddenly a light from heaven flashed around him. 4 He fell to the ground and heard a voice say to him, “Saul, Saul, why do you persecute me?”
5 “Who are you, Lord?” Saul asked.

“I am Jesus, whom you are persecuting,” he replied. 6 “Now get up and go into the city, and you will be told what you must do.”

7 The men traveling with Saul stood there speechless; they heard the sound but did not see anyone. 8 Saul got up from the ground, but when he opened his eyes he could see nothing. So they led him by the hand into Damascus. 9 For three days he was blind, and did not eat or drink anything.

10 In Damascus there was a disciple named Ananias. The Lord called to him in a vision, “Ananias!”

“Yes, Lord,” he answered.

11 The Lord told him, “Go to the house of Judas on Straight Street and ask for a man from Tarsus named Saul, for he is praying. 12 In a vision he has seen a man named Ananias come and place his hands on him to restore his sight.”

13 “Lord,” Ananias answered, “I have heard many reports about this man and all the harm he has done to your holy people in Jerusalem. 14 And he has come here with authority from the chief priests to arrest all who call on your name.”

15 But the Lord said to Ananias, “Go! This man is my chosen instrument to proclaim my name to the Gentiles and their kings and to the people of Israel. 16 I will show him how much he must suffer for my name.”

17 Then Ananias went to the house and entered it. Placing his hands on Saul, he said, “Brother Saul, the Lord—Jesus, who appeared to you on the road as you were coming here—has sent me so that you may see again and be filled with the Holy Spirit.” 18 Immediately, something like scales fell from Saul’s eyes, and he could see again. He got up and was baptized, 19 and after taking some food, he regained his strength. (Acts9:1-19)

In other words, Paul, even as he persecuted the church, knew the reality of God did he not?

Atheists spend all their time demanding proof, and Paul got it. Why would he then continue to deny it?

Its a simple question, could Paul have walked away if he so chose to? It is the question is it not. And therein lies the example that is the crux of the issue. Either Paul chose to accept his calling, or he was enslaved in God will?

Which is it?

 

You keep asking me for proof and I keep showing you that I've given it - round and round. So, I gave you links to understand some basics of logic, and that will be the end of that circle for me.

(Queue reply about how you're magically exempt from logic.)

So discussing one's viewpoints or giving advice is somehow limiting free will? No, I don't think so.

 

Simple: Show two differing forms of philosophy which are bound by the precise same rules. The philosophy of law (jurisprudence) is not required to abide by the philosophy of science. Both have differing forms of logic. The same applies to the difference between Theology and Science. The circle for you will continue as long as you continue your attempt to force the logic of science on the philosophy of Religion.

No! That action is an attempt to influence the 'free will' of another in a hope of causing that other person to alter his/her own free will to become more closely aligned with your free will. Otherwise there would be no 'good' reason for you to be saying anything about the subject that is under discussion. As an example: Why are you involved in discussing religion?

 

Woah. Free WILL my friend, not free stuff.

We believe people are sent to hell because of disobedience towards God's will, but repeated disobedience without any real effort to change. Continuous lying, repeatedly murdering, etc… without seeking forgiveness at that, and you can get yourself sent straight to hell.

Free will means you have the right to make a choice, I don’t know what you mean by this free stuff concept.

I’m sorry, but that’s nowhere even close to the Christian definition of free. Since the managers and workers are not controlling your thoughts, the Christian definition of free will would be that you have the choice of whether or not to buy something in the store, and if you choose to buy something, you have the choice of what to buy and how much of it to buy.

And you use the monetary definition of free. It is not “free” and “will”, we mean the single phrase “free will”, which means we have the God-given right to choose to do anything, between good and evil. It does not mean doing your will is free, the phrase “free will” means that you have the freedom to choose to do what you want to do. Honestly, I have no idea where you get the monetary form of free into this. Next time, remember “free will” is an inseperable phrase in that context, not “free” and “will”. It may make everything easier to understand, because honestly, everything you are saying makes no sense to me.

 

So I was reading your debate with another poster, and you often switch between definitions of exactly what "free" means. In the context of free will, this word means we can do whatever we please. However, in many of the Christian religions, there are things that are known as sins that have both worldly and spiritual consequences. Humans are not banned from doing these things, but we must face the consequences as with any decision, good or bad. Fortunately many Christian religions believe in grace and forgiveness so that when they do make a bad decision they can be relieved of the whole "tortured for eternity" thing.