Key

I don't necessarily agree to the word "strong", as much as "open minded" or "understanding" to replace it in that statement. Sometimes the bonding of two weak souls can make each other stronger just through support of each other by mutual understanding.

Yes. And think of the people who were killed for 'acts of heresy" while following the original culture's intent and holiday.

Yes, but using correct math for a flaw in reality is really a joke, too. Flaws can't accept it...because it is flawed.

Not really. Interpretation is key. Not literally. (I did get it. But I guess mine missed?)

Ah, but that may not be the only question with the same outcome. 32 + 10?

And just as Jonathan says about there being "thousands of different varieties of Christian' and "nobody speaks for all of them", remember, too, that some voices are ever louder than others, but that does not make them right, nor the softer voices being wrong.

Well. Dan, this answer only demonstrates that God intervenes regardless of so called free will. "Odds are", also means chance to do opposite. Children were then needlessly slaughtered. Also, would you listen to someone on the street that you think may be a crackpot, or the unquestionable voice of God? That may have been the difference with Noah. Thus, it also seems likely that the Canaanites heard the message the same way, by men, not God.

Welcome to the family. Yes, we truly are a family. We laugh, share, support and bicker with each other all the time. But always, we enjoy the freedom of our experiences and fellowship along our journey to learn whatever it is that we wish to understand about our belief systems and each other. Again, welcome and blessings to you.

Your use of Lincoln does not support your argument. The address was handwritten on his way to the location the speech would be delivered. That draft was saved. Handwriting analysis could, and has, confirm he wrote it. As for the other historical figures, we'll never know, maybe.

What do you suppose it could be? The one premise is that we may not have true free will if all outcomes are already known. If that were true, then it might possibly be argued that time travel might likewise be unchanged, as all things led up to the possibility of said time travel. There are many other theories, of course. What are your thoughts?

Just so. Religion gave rise to science and reason, ironically. Then when it inspired people to deduce things logically, as science requires, they tried to suppress it as heresy. Why? Because it reduced their influence and power. It is one thing to honor and worship a deity. Quite another to control the masses. You'd think an all powerful deity wouldn't need subordinate handlers to do that. Especially, as He, supposedly, promotes the ability of free will. Right?

You can only assume. Some, like in other religions, may be in name only. And they may be compelled toward change after what we've been through with this administration.

Especially true of those who simply will not accept the possibility of being wrong. Or won't accept defeat in a heated debate where all facts are presented. No one likes to be the weaker person, but strength is greater in the one who can accept failure and learn from it to succeed later.

You do understand that this is a contradiction. To stay in character and principle, "unchanging", there can be no change of heart, for that changes principles, and thus character. Further, to make such changes, He would not be the same as He was from the beginning.

Of course, we will differ in opinion. Abraham set to sacrifice his son was known by God, but not Abraham. That is why He stopped Him. He was indicating to Abraham to be safe in the knowledge from that point, (now), God knew of his devotion. So, it referred to Abraham's knowledge, not God's. So must all other circumstances be similarly be defined. For God to have said that He was the same in the beginning as He is in the present, and will be in the future would be a lie if He didn't have knowledge of everything and had to learn of decisions as they were made. If He only knew the possible outcomes, He would have to change according to each, thus could not be the "same" at all times.

Actually, he does. We don't. Part of the definition of being an "all knowing" God, means just that.

To be fair, Jonathan, the thread topic is on free will. We brought in the time tangent as an influence aspect of free will. Dan's last response did correlate the two.

But if there is no future, you would shoot only into a void, or cease to exist, yourself. That hardly seems fun.

I can't say things for certainty, either. I can question everything, and never know the answers. But it's the questions that make things interesting enough to seek the answers. Otherwise, we would truly never get anywhere with anything. Why should we look at the past, present, and future as a string between two trees? A beginning, middle, and end. Why not, as I posed in my last response, all of them existing at once with a "veil" to obscure any interaction or catastrophic doom? Would kind of explain 'ghosts" that interact with us now. Occasionally, the "veil" is thin enough to communicate through.

As for the "time machine" proposal, once you use it, there can be no return to your starting point. You altered the path by going back. And the past. as you knew it could change, as well, as you added an element that was previously missing...you. But that's going off in a different subject. Free will is only an illusion to those who don't believe we can make choices, or that a predetermined destiny awaits. Which does take much of the fun out of living and enjoying the experience it gives. Could it not be possible that all "universes" align together at the same moment, but only those associated to the choices we make reveal themselves at the moment of the decision? Possibly taking turns with our perception while we play eenie meenie mynee moe?

It could still apply. Patience would not take notice of a lot of time, yet impatience would. In essence, there already is no time, yet human emotion can not equate life without it. Now, if you apply it in terms of growth, what you say is very true.

I kind of differ here. In place of time, I'd say patience gives us duration. (Less patience, more adrenaline for faster response, which renders short term benefits, but sacrifices long term benefits. More patience, less adrenaline, longer response lapse.) Action or inaction gives us sequence and causality. Each is activated by human emotion or perception. As far as we are aware not everything is happening at the same moment. As far as perception goes, maybe it does, but our minds can grasp only so much at once. (Which might also be an argument for the existence of spirits or ghosts, no?) Yes, we existed for a very long time before Scripture came to be, and probably would be just as troubled had it not been written. We will never know for sure, now.

The past is unchanging because what was done can not be undone. When you burn your hand, you can not unburn it. It must heal. The future is ever changing. Every thought or decision changes the course of current reality. Doing nothing sets a path in one direction, but the instant an action is thought or performed, the direction is diverted, because there is a change from doing nothing. (Kind of like stepping forward, as opposed to standing still, or sidestepping leads us to a different position.) We can not see these paths, because we are unaware, unable, or fail to see multiple dimensions of any timeline. We do not know the future can be changed, really, because we don't know what happens in the future with any certainty. We can only assume, just as we can only hypothesize.

Reasonable deductive thinking. Of course, He would have considered that, as well.

Time is really a purely human concept of measure. We schedule virtually every aspect of our lives with it, even without thinking about it, as we have become conditioned to do it. Nature, meanwhile, goes about it's business unhindered by it. Driven purely by the needs of survival to do what it needs to as it needs to. As for a God, since He isn't, or they aren't, human. The entity isn't defined by it. Thus, is as it was in the beginning, as it is presently, and will be tomorrow. The presence doesn't really exists in "time", as we know it. That's somewhat of a hypothesis that I have an ongoing development in my mind. Still exploring the rough draft of it, you might say.