The Free Will Paradox - Part II: The Apple

Note: Before reading this, please read The Free Will Paradox - Part I: The Paradox

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

-The Apple-

    Did God truly give man free will? Why would he want man to have free will? We can assume that it is the purpose He created us. Of all creatures He has or could create, He chose to create one with free will. One reason is so we may choose between good and bad. But if God is the Creator of all things He is the creator of bad as well as good. Who is to say what is good or what is bad? It is man. Man reasons that this is good or bad as a collective group deciding laws or as an individual with morals. Did God put us here to determine what is good or evil to us? We can safely assume He did not. Instead the ability to have free will is the only trait that would matter to a being where there is such a word as ‘faith’. God would only need to bestow something as radical as free will on a creature that He would want to have the ultimate choice. That is, the choice of God. If man is freely allowed to choose God or reject God, what will he do? 

    God, of course, could easily force all mankind to choose him. He could rain miracles on each man, flood the earth with angels or whatever it would take to convince each man that He is real. The reason He does not do these things must be because He wants us to have the choice; the choice of God. While it is important to think of this in the most open sense possible and not follow the words of man on the ultimate being of God, we can find an interesting scenario in the Abrahamic religions that show the fall of man due to his own choice. Exploring this can certainly help us to find out more about the choices of man, or lack there of. Be this story true, apocryphal, or simply a metaphor, it does not matter. What matters is the basic fact that man willingly (or not?) disobeyed God.

    God placed Adam and Eve in paradise. There was no want, no need, no sin, no evil. The one rule God gave was not to eat from the tree of knowledge. This, however, is exactly what happened. When Eve came to the tree she found the serpent who offered her the fruit asking, ‘why should you not eat it’? The serpent is often assumed to be Satan, but there is no general consensus to place this as fact. Instead it makes much more sense to see the serpent, if we must look at it in a metaphorical sense, as being man’s free will. Adam and Eve look at the tree of knowledge and their free will asks them, “Why can’t we eat this fruit? Why shouldn’t I have knowledge of good or evil, surely it will not kill me. I choose to eat this fruit. I choose to disobey God". As the story goes, man discovers what he assumes to be good and evil or right from wrong and is expelled from paradise and God’s grace for disobeying Him.

    Was this truly their decision? If Adam and Eve had not eaten the fruit they would have remained in paradise with God. Now, because of their choice, mankind is not with God or in paradise and we are able to decide for ourselves whether we accept God or not. It is interesting that once man has eaten the fruit he discovers something that was not there before: Evil. It is not something new that comes to them, but has been there all along even though they were ignorant of it.

    There are only two possible scenarios for man to have eaten the fruit. Either man, of his own free will (unbeknownst to God), chose to eat the fruit, or, as God knew, man had no other option but to eat the fruit. In order for man to have free will he would have to fall from grace. He would have to be separated from God in order to truly be able to choose God. We are presented two conundrums here, assuming God wants man to freely choose him and divine grace. Firstly, if God knew man would eat the fruit then, as previously argued, this would negate his free will. If, however, God did not know if man would choose to eat the fruit then there is a possibility that man would never have chosen the fruit, therefore never been separated from God and paradise, therefore never need to have free will to choose God.

If it is true that Adam and Eve had to eat the apple to have free will, then the paradox would be thus: There would be no option except for man to choose to eat the fruit. This would have to happen to facilitate God’s greater “plan” of free will. If this had to happen, if there was no other way, then this was never really a choice.

Auschwitz Diet

Work Will Set You Free 

    For a long time Fad Diets were all the rage. The Atkins Diet, The South Beach Diet, The Zone Diet, etc... Over the past few years these have cooled off a bit, but people still need to lose weight. What is to be done? Well, I have discovered a new method of dieting used back in the 1930s and 1940s with proven results. These people not only met, but exceeded their weight-loss goals. I introduce to you, the Auschwitz Diet!

Stop feeling sorry for yourself and get on the Auschwitz Diet!

  
    The Auschwitz Diet, despite its name, is not solely for Jews and Pollock; anyone can do it! This diet has only two small steps, that if followed, will guarantee you will meet your weight-loss goals 100%. Why waste time with Fade diets like South Beach and Atkins that develop unhealthy eating habits and force you to simply lose interest? Or risk your health on dangerous diets like the tape worm diet? Instead of throwing away money on diet pills try the proven method developed by German engineers. How is all this possible? Millions of test subjects and thousands of man hours have been put into this simple formula to maximize weight-loss and increase self-confidence.  Just follow these simple procedures:

1. Stop Eating
2. Exercise

    Seems pretty simple right? All you need to do is cut your caloric intake to around 500 calories per day and increase your physical activity which can include anything from walking to running to carrying heavy objects. There is a full detailed description in my new book which comes out this spring. Right on time to tone up that beach body!

The Free Will Paradox - Part I: The Paradox

    

By reading this we will assume there is a God (or a life-force/spirit/etc...) that exists. Otherwise the argument is pointless. We will also not use quotes from any religious texts, since there are many that contradict one another and are too ambiguous.

....................................................................................................................................................

-The Paradox-

    When the question is asked whether or not man has free will or if God has a plan, an ambiguous answer is often given, “you have free will, but God knows what decision you will make”. If this is the case, if God knows the out come, then there is no other possible choice for you to make. If God knows what you will choose to do and what will happen, then each person has a destiny and therefore lacks true free will.

    To explain this further, let us say God knows that you will make the choice to eat pizza for lunch today. If God knows the choice we will make and what will happen, then it has to happen. There is no way for you to eat anything else for lunch today, if God truly knows that you will eat pizza. If something is going to happen and there is no other option except for you to do it, then you truly have no choice. It certainly appears that you have a decision, you can choose anything you wish for lunch, but God already knows you will choose pizza. While this choice seems to us as though we made it, on the level of comprehension of God (which we surely do not comprehend) the choice was already known and only appeared to be real for us.

    One scenario we will use is that in five years God knows you will make the choice to kill a man. If this is a true statement then there is no need to use the phrase “make the choice to”…

If I may digress, in this observation we are using the term of God as it can only be understood; without religious texts or traditions which there are so many that the contradictions alone would render this discussion impotent. Instead we look at God with human reason, which is truly all we have in our repertoire to think of such things. He is a being that is truly beyond complete human comprehension, Creator of all and not created, the beginning and end of all things and neither has a beginning nor an ending, that He is great and all things are below him, and that He is right in whatever His actions (as opposed to what we may feel is right or wrong). Regardless of what man made texts say about God these things must be true for Him to exist as the one true God for it is greater to exist than not exist. 

    If God knows that we will decide to kill a man in five years, there is nothing we can do to change that, regardless of the fact that we have absolutely no idea we will do this and would do anything to the contrary if we had the foreknowledge. If a decision is known beforehand by God that we will do something, five years beforehand, and it is known by God, omnipotent and omniscient, then it has to happen. If this has to happen, as God knows it will, then there is no way for you to do other wise. If God knows you will kill a man, or choose to kill a man, in five years, then you will kill a man in five years. Otherwise, how could there be a God that is omniscient, yet not know your choice before it is made? This is your decision, but the outcome of which is already known. This is not a choice, but the illusion of a choice. How can you truly make a choice if the outcome is already known beforehand by a higher being?

    It is argued that God simply knows the decision that we will make. That it is our free will to choose one thing over another and God knows this. But if God knows this then there is no way to do otherwise, even if it appears that we freely chose to do it. This is nothing but the illusion of choice. The illusion of free will. Certainly on our level of comprehension it absolutely seems as though we made that choice freely, but a choice where the outcome is already known is not a choice at all. If God truly bestowed free will on man there is no way He could know our decisions or their outcomes. There is no way He could know the future. This would create a Paradox; how is God all mighty, all powerful, all knowing, if he does not know the simple future of man?

Thus the Paradox is, if there is a God He can do anything He wills, except give Free Will to man, because in order to do this he would not be able to know the choices we make, therefore, not be omniscient and therefore not be God.

Continued with: The Free Will Paradox - Part II: The Apple

Arianism

    Arianism is a non-trinitarian sect of Christianity developed by St. Arius (c. 250-336AD) of Alexandria that taught Jesus did not always exist, but was created by God. This belief became so wide spread that it was causing a rift in the control the catholics wanted to maintain over all Christians. When Christianity was finally legalized by Constantine a council was called to establish a cohesive Christian doctrine; Council of Nicaea of 325. Here the Trinity was established as the official belief structure and St. Arius was declared a heretic. Later he would be exonerated in 335 at the First Synode of Tyre. After his death in 381, however, he would again be called a heretic at the First Council of Constantinople. 

Germanic Invasion

    The controversy was much deeper than most people know. Arius was competing with his rival Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria who eventually succeeded in getting the trinity accepted as the only true form of Christianity. Arianism, however, did not die out. After Constantine's death two of his successors, Constantius II and Valens were Arian Catholics. Many of the Germanic tribes were also largely Arian, thanks in part to Theodoric the Germanic king of the Ostrogoths. The church, by this time, had already taken firm control over the majority of the Roman Empire. Once these Germanic peoples invaded they would slowly integrate with the native population and accept their languages, cultures and religion. The Roman Catholic Church could now establish doctrines and solidify their strong roots that would allow them to control Europe and Christianity for the next 1200 years.  Some Christian groups today are non-trinitarian, such as the Jehovah's Witnesses, Unitarians and Church of God (7th Day) – Salem Conference, but these groups do not follow the teachings and many of the principles laid out by St. Arius. Many Arian sects remained in the farther eastern portions of the Roman Empire and remained until the conquest of Islam. Some scholars even believe Islam is a descendant of Arianism.

    Believers in the Trinity say that the Son is the Father who is the Holy Spirit, however, the Son is also not the Father, who is not the Trinity, as shown in this picture:

Makes perfect sense...

    Despite the obvious paradox created with this statement, it is commonly accepted today without much thought. The Arian, non-trinitarian, theology says that there is only one God, who created the Son, who together created our known universe (Earth, man, etc...). The Holy Spirit is simply the love of God, or the work of God, being given down to man. It is, simply put, God allowing his presence to be felt by man. Jesus used this Holy Spirit (the love of God) to do miracles and claim to be on the level of God (level of understanding). It seems contradictory to say you believe in a monothiestic religion yet you have three Gods. But it's only one God, but it's three, because it's one... No.

St. Arius

    There are many scriptures in the Bible that are used as proof texts for the trinitarian believers. Most of these are quite ambiguous and often times contradictory. The non-trinitarian 'proof texts' are generally easier to interpret and much less ambiguous. Many of them are simply dismissed by the trinitarian sects today. Below I have listed many of these scriptures starting with some of the most obvious.

Clear scriptures of Jesus being separate and less than God.

• John 3:16 For God so loved the world that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life. -begotten means created
• Matthew 19:17 Why do you ask me about what is good? There is only one who is good.
• John 14:28 You heard me say to you, 'I am going away, and I will come to you.' If you loved me, you would have rejoiced, because I am going to the Father, for the Father is greater than I.
• John 8:28 So Jesus said to them, "When you have lifted up the Son of Man, then you will know that I am he, and that I do nothing on my own authority, but speak just as the Father taught me.
• Mark 13:32 But concerning that day or that hour, no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father.
• Hebrews 5:8 Although he was a son, he learned obedience through what he suffered.
• Colossians 1:15 He is the image of the invisible God, the firstborn of all creation.
• John 20:17 Jesus said to her, "Do not cling to me, for I have not yet ascended to the Father; but go to my brothers and say to them, 'I am ascending to my Father and your Father, to my God and your God.'"
• John 17:3 And this is eternal life, that they know you the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
• Deuteronomy 6:4 Hear, O Israel: The LORD our God, the LORD is one.
• Mark 12:29 Jesus answered, "The most important is, 'Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. -Here Jesus repeats Deuteronomy 6:4
• Corinthians 11:3 But I would have you know, that the head of every man is Christ; and the head of the woman is the man; and the head of Christ is God.
• Matthew 27:46 Around the ninth hour, Jesus shouted in a loud voice, saying "Eli Eli lama sabachthani?" which is, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?

Jesus being exalted after ascension to heaven.

• Acts 5:31 God exalted him at his right hand as Leader and Savior, to give repentance to Israel and forgiveness of sins.
• Philippians 2:9 Therefore God has highly exalted him and bestowed on him the name that is above every name

Jesus having a distinct personality in Heaven

• Hebrews 9:24 For Christ has entered, not into holy places made with hands, which are copies of the true things, but into heaven itself, now to appear in the presence of God on our behalf.
• Acts 7:55 But he, full of the Holy Spirit, gazed into heaven and saw the glory of God, and Jesus standing at the right hand of God. -Here the Holy Spirit is in someone other than Jesus showing it is not part of a god-head.
• Corinthians 15:24 When he has done this, then the Son himself will be made subject to him who put everything under him, so that God may be all in all.

Other Examples such as Jesus praying to God or Jesus being tempted by Satan (Why would Satan tempt God if God created everything?)

• Jesus prays to God. (John 17:1-3)
• Jesus has faith in God. (Hebrews 2:17,18, Hebrews 3:2)
• Jesus is a servant of God. (Acts 3:13)
• Jesus does not know things God knows. (Mark 13:32, Revelation 1:1)
• Jesus worships God. (John 4:22)
• Jesus has one who is God to him. (Revelation 3:12)
• Jesus is in subjection to God. (1 Corinthians 15:28)
• Jesus is given authority by God. (Philippians 2:9)
• Jesus is given kingship by God. (Luke 1:32,33)
• Jesus is given judgment by God. (Acts 10:42)
• "God raised [Jesus] from the dead". (Acts 2:24, Romans 10:9, 1 Corinthians 15:15)
• Jesus is at the right hand of God. (Mark 16:19, Luke 22:69, Acts 2:33, Romans 8:34)
• Jesus is the one human mediator between the one God and man. (1 Timothy 2:5)
• God put everything, except Himself, under Jesus. (1 Corinthians 15:24-28)
• Jesus did not think being "equal with God" was graspable. (Philippians 2:6)

A good book to read on this subject is When Jesus Became God by Richard Rubenstein.  It goes into detail of the rivalry between Arius and Athanasius and how the trinitarian ideology took hold in the Roman Empire. You can also visit the website for the Arian Church to lean a great deal more than what is covered here.

Existential Morals

  

   I understand the topic of morals has been touched on by many philosophers who are far smarter than I. Never the less I feel it is important to take the time to write out my thoughts on the matter of Morals without a supreme constant. Side Note: I know this has been discussed in depth by Nietzsche, especially in "Thus Spoke Zarathustra".

    For the new generations in Europe and America, atheism is rapidly growing.

• 2008 Gallop poll shows 15% of Americans are atheists, up from 8% in 1990
• In Europe only 52% of people believe in a god, 17% believe in a 'life force'.

Over the past 1500 years the moral code for the majority of western civilization has been based on the Bible; that is the teachings of Jesus in the New Testament. This has mainly been that it is ok to be meek and poor because you will find grace in God's eyes so long as you follow what he says. That you should treat others as you want to be treated. That certain things are evil and certain things are good. These things are a constant because God says so and God does not change.
    Looking at things from this view point it is easy to say what is right and what is wrong: what ever God/Jesus said. But in today's society is this still true? If a new country with majority, or all, atheists were created, what would they base their laws on? Surely Good vs Evil must be thrown out, for how can there be evil with no God? ("The absurd is sin without God" -Camus) Instead there is only Bad, so it must be Good vs Bad. Now the question is: what is Good, what is Bad?

    To not believe in God is to believe that presence precedes essence. In other words, there is no pre-determined fate or universal law that we humans should follow. Instead it is up to us to decide for ourselves what is right or wrong. Some of these things are easy. It is generally accepted that murder without cause is wrong (though there is always a cause be it just or not), or rape is wrong. But some people feel the need to murder to get money for food. To them this is Good, since they have no concern for the other person. The Japanese, when they invaded mainland China, raped and killed many people because they believed they were a superior race. There was nothing wrong or bad about this to them. This is true for many genocides: Native Americans vs Manifest Destiny, Hutu vs Tutsi, Aryians vs Jews, etc...

    Even more complicated is the question of slavery. For the vast majority of human history slavery has been accepted. How is this to be determined? Or the issue with pedophiles. In Greece 500BC there was no problem with a man having sex with a boy. Today, NAMBLA members don't get the same respect that Plato and Aristotle did. Well, in muslim countries NAMBLA might be alright.
     The thing that I want to know is whether or not there can be laws created on a purely existential basis. If so, these laws would be subject to constant change since they would have to be based on what the 'majority' of people feel is right. If one year Man-Boy love is OK and slavery is back in style then no problem. But the next decade that could change. Is this really a better system?
     Realistically this is not much different than what is currently in place. Today nations whose laws are backed by Christian values still had slaves as recent as a couple hundred years ago and still commit executions. But there is a strong undertone that these things are wrong and as we have seen in the evolution of western democracies these things have weeded themselves out so that our governments look to be following the teachings of the Bible much more closely than if they were based on any thing else. It seems as though our system of laws has been in continuous gravitation around a common universal principle.
    So what will an atheist or agnostic society do when 51% of the population is OK with slavery or even murder. If we aren't created by God we are simply animals. Monkeys don't have a problem killing other monkeys. It was Mark Twain that said "Nature knows no indecencies; man invents them". If a new law system were to develop out of atheistic principles it would have to be based on good vs evil and probably related closer to those of ancient Rome and Greece than those of democracies today. The theme for this new system could possibly be that which was developed by ancient Sparta, Athens and Rome: Might is right.
    If this is the case it is certain that many things would change. Perhaps euthanasia would not be frowned upon, nor slavery. This would come to resemble Aldous Huxley's A Brave New World. I think it is ironic that the majority of atheist liberal thinkers that today believe in social benefits come from our biblical oriented system while in a future system based off of atheism (might is right) the social benefits would probably not be around and would probably be frowned upon.

Just curious on the possible future governments and law systems should they be based around an atheist society where there is considered to be no universal right or wrong.

Note on the pictures above:
1) Nietzsche
2) Atheists often argue "Occam's razor", but is there that much difference to say an invisible man created everything as opposed to everything came from nothing.... no problem?
3) While it is true that religion has suppressed scientific thinking it is also worth noting that this large gap is often blamed on Christianity. Where was the rest of the world besides Europe? Surely those non-Christian Africans and Asians and Muslims and Buddhists are exploring the galaxy by now... not a very sound argument.
4) Islam often sets contracts for children not yet born to be married, however the wedding is not consummated until the child reaches puberty. However this could be very young especially at our current standards.

Conspiracy Catch-22

    For a long time I have felt one of the largest problems in America is the lack of interest people show towards the economic and political situations of our country. There is a certain amount of interest that will make a blip on the radar screen when something large happens, such as the recent stock market drop and recession or the last presidential election. But other than that most people only worry about the next American Idol or what is happening on Jersey Shore. I feel it is important to research as much as you can into whatever is going on around you so you can make an informed decision.

    Because of my indignation towards this wave of apathy prevalent in America I find my self in an awkward position now that I am starting to see the futility of trying to show someone the truth. For the past few years I have watched 9/11 conspiracy theories and come to realize that most of the official story is absolute rubbish. It is not hard to simply look at the facts, which I will not get into here, and find detail after detail that doesn't fit.

    I went to the Iraq war as a Marine and believed I was fighting for freedom. I bought into the Bush policy of terrorism and for whatever reason we needed to attack Iraq because it had something to do with Osama bin Laden in Afghanistan... or something like that. But now that I am more mature and able to think for myself, I see the entire war was not to free the Iraqi people, but further some other agenda be it oil or corporate greed. Since watching the conspiracy videos I have come upon other conspiracies which mostly seem far fetched and stupid, but can't totally be negated. Some of these conspiracies actually hold water and deserve more attention. One of these is the JFK assassination.  I found, while researching this, that a Gallop poll showed that only 13% of Americans believed that Oswald shot JFK with no other conspirators (http://www.gallup.com/poll/1813/most-americans-believe-oswald-conspired-others-kill-jfk.aspx).


    Looking into the believers of the 9/11 conspiracy I found a plethora of data showing that between 30-40% of people believe there was government assistance with the attacks of 9/11. http://www.organicconsumers.org/articles/article_1475.cfm
http://www.scrippsnews.com/911poll
I found this interesting since I had always thought of this as a fringe movement, but 1 in 3 people is far beyond a fringe. So clearly the message is out; there is more to 9/11 than we are being told. But, what does it matter? If almost 90% of Americans believe JFK was not killed solely by Oswald, yet nothing ever came other than the official story. Now 30% of Americans think there is more to 9/11, but what has come of that? Nothing.  I see now that no matter how many people believe there is more to 9/11, nothing will change. Not unless it were to interrupt the American Idol winner.
    It is only logical to be lethargic on the issue of 9/11 having government involvement. We know the government has done it before, ie The Golf of Tonkin incident which sent 58,000 American soldiers to their deaths to prevent communism in the vast metropolis and critical country of Vietnam, lest we be attacked by dominoes. Now again we are told to fight a war for a cause (terrorism) as vague and meaningless as communism in the Vietnam jungle.

    My new found apathy toward educating people on this problem is the very thing that I hate so much about America, but I find my self in a Catch-22 situation. If I do nothing, I hate myself for no longer caring. But if I tell them, it doesn't matter because just as the JFK assassination, 90% of Americans can believe there is more to 9/11, but nothing will be done.