Knowing and free will

[nobspeople]

In another thread, it was said "...claim that making himself known to all would somehow abrogate our free will." In context, this seemed to reference god not making himself known to humanity.
If this assumption is correct, it seems there's a thought 'out there' that people say if god makes itself known to humanity, that this would negate or nullify free will.

For those that believe this, please explain how this would, it seems, nullify or negate or eliminate or abrogate free will?

If this isn't true (god making itself know would negate free will), what, then, does it mean to you?

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I can't be sure this was specifically said or whether it was what atheist apologists related as the Christian apologists' explanation as to why God doesn't simply appear and let us all know what's what. Apparently to do this would remove the opportunity to have Faith (believing without compelling evidence) which is (so it seems) the price of a ticket to salvation. Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that the more a Christian has to deny or ignore compelling evidence to maintain the Faith, the better and stronger and more worthy and deserving that Faith is. Belief in Jesusgod through compelling evidence...well...one might as well be a Scientist (1)

This 'freewill' idea is the coin of which the reverse is the 'Problem of Evil' which has elements of 'God can't put it right, because then everyone would KNOW that He exists and that would destroy Faith, right?' But there are also elements of a morality learning -curve that is part of God's Plan, or his training methods at least.

Over to you, apologists.

(1) Always need a foopnote, friends. I was cursed by the footnote - fairy while a baby because my parents didn't invite her to the Christening.
Somehow it seems that adducing compelling evidence to Convert doubters is perfectly fine, even though (as I have asserted elsewhere), being talked into Faith is what counts and, if the evidence is misrepresented, or even a downright lie, it's ok because 'Hey, what do a few untruths matter is some souls are saved?' is the watchword.

But Having Faith, believing it for Good reasons is (or so we goddless feel) somehow diluting the quality of Faith, and the more compelling evidence the believer has, the less praiseworthy the Faith is and the more they risk not squeezing through the pearly turnstile.

There's also the aspect of the entry ticket to Heaven depending on What you believe (the Right Denomination) rather than How, but that may simply be an optional extra in addition to the basic vehicle of Godfaith. And I wouldn't want us to be diverted down the red herring trail of religious tribalism and the elite of religious exclusivity.

[nobspeople]

Yes. I can't be sure this was specifically said or whether it was what atheist apologists related as the Christian apologists' explanation as to why God doesn't simply appear and let us all know what's what. Apparently to do this would remove the opportunity to have Faith (believing without compelling evidence) which is (so it seems) the price of a ticket to salvation. Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that the more a Christian has to deny or ignore compelling evidence to maintain the Faith, the better and stronger and more worthy and deserving that Faith is. Belief in Jesusgod through compelling evidence...well...one might as well be a Scientist (1)

This 'freewill' idea is the coin of which the reverse is the 'Problem of Evil' which has elements of 'God can't put it right, because then everyone would KNOW that He exists and that would destroy Faith, right?' But there are also elements of a morality learning -curve that is part of God's Plan, or his training methods at least.

Over to you, apologists.

(1) Always need a foopnote, friends. I was cursed by the footnote - fairy while a baby because my parents didn't invite her to the Christening.
Somehow it seems that adducing compelling evidence to Convert doubters is perfectly fine, even though (as I have asserted elsewhere), being talked into Faith is what counts and, if the evidence is misrepresented, or even a downright lie, it's ok because 'Hey, what do a few untruths matter is some souls are saved?' is the watchword.

But Having Faith, believing it for Good reasons is (or so we goddless feel) somehow diluting the quality of Faith, and the more compelling evidence the believer has, the less praiseworthy the Faith is and the more they risk not squeezing through the pearly turnstile.

There's also the aspect of the entry ticket to Heaven depending on What you believe (the Right Denomination) rather than How, but that may simply be an optional extra in addition to the basic vehicle of Godfaith. And I wouldn't want us to be diverted down the red herring trail of religious tribalism and the elite of religious exclusivity.

Surely, for some, 'knowing' would eliminate the need for faith. But faith, it seems, is nothing more than 'ego stroking' for god as it does nothing legitimate for the individual, instead relying on 'hope' and 'wish' that they're doing and living 'right'.
Seems god is more into saying 'have faith and believe' than 'know me without doubt'.
Using faith instead of knowledge seems more 'god centered' than anything else.

All that said, it still doesn't seem to be a reason why 'knowing' would eliminate 'free will'. A person knows it may not be wise to speed on an icy road, but they're free to do so anyway.

[TRANSPONDER]

Yes. I can't be sure this was specifically said or whether it was what atheist apologists related as the Christian apologists' explanation as to why God doesn't simply appear and let us all know what's what. Apparently to do this would remove the opportunity to have Faith (believing without compelling evidence) which is (so it seems) the price of a ticket to salvation. Indeed, I have a strong suspicion that the more a Christian has to deny or ignore compelling evidence to maintain the Faith, the better and stronger and more worthy and deserving that Faith is. Belief in Jesusgod through compelling evidence...well...one might as well be a Scientist (1)

This 'freewill' idea is the coin of which the reverse is the 'Problem of Evil' which has elements of 'God can't put it right, because then everyone would KNOW that He exists and that would destroy Faith, right?' But there are also elements of a morality learning -curve that is part of God's Plan, or his training methods at least.

Over to you, apologists.

(1) Always need a foopnote, friends. I was cursed by the footnote - fairy while a baby because my parents didn't invite her to the Christening.
Somehow it seems that adducing compelling evidence to Convert doubters is perfectly fine, even though (as I have asserted elsewhere), being talked into Faith is what counts and, if the evidence is misrepresented, or even a downright lie, it's ok because 'Hey, what do a few untruths matter is some souls are saved?' is the watchword.

But Having Faith, believing it for Good reasons is (or so we goddless feel) somehow diluting the quality of Faith, and the more compelling evidence the believer has, the less praiseworthy the Faith is and the more they risk not squeezing through the pearly turnstile.

There's also the aspect of the entry ticket to Heaven depending on What you believe (the Right Denomination) rather than How, but that may simply be an optional extra in addition to the basic vehicle of Godfaith. And I wouldn't want us to be diverted down the red herring trail of religious tribalism and the elite of religious exclusivity.

Surely, for some, 'knowing' would eliminate the need for faith. But faith, it seems, is nothing more than 'ego stroking' for god as it does nothing legitimate for the individual, instead relying on 'hope' and 'wish' that they're doing and living 'right'.
Seems god is more into saying 'have faith and believe' than 'know me without doubt'.
Using faith instead of knowledge seems more 'god centered' than anything else.

All that said, it still doesn't seem to be a reason why 'knowing' would eliminate 'free will'. A person knows it may not be wise to speed on an icy road, but they're free to do so anyway.

Yes. The reason why I distinguish belief (for valid reasons) from Faith (capital eff) by which I mean opting for the preferred belief and never mind the evidence, is because of the theist apologetic that belief for the reasons of verified data and logical reasoning are no less Faith than believing in this or that claim even if the evidence not compelling, or indeed lacking or is only one of many possible conclusions. This leads to the ignoring of any other god being the Creator (1). Now, I recognised after being (as an interested skeptic) in the UFO world for a while, that theist apologetics worked exactly the same way, wagging science (misinterpreted or false) about as evidence when it seemed to support faith in UFOs, but dismissed as closed - minded (was what it came down to , really) skepticism when it didn't. Also inverted logic such as 'you can't dismiss the possibility' and 'if you don't have an explanation that persuades me (not that I'll ever admit it even in the face of compelling evidence ) for this or that even or even an anecdotal claim, then my claim stands as the default theory, or at least as good as yours.'. Recognize it? I did.

Anyway, knowing and free will...what was I talking about... It's this idea that just knowing that God is real either through personal appearances or through compelling miracles, or making all the nuclear warheads vanish or something, so we'd all Know that God was there would remove this aspect of Faith without adequate reason. The keynote being that having Faith rather than just belief is what is the best, and (I suspect) has become the Cut between what is worthy of salvation and what is not.

(1) the last Official Line of Creationism, following ID being designated in a court of law as Creationism and thus religious belief and not science, was to argue scientific belief for a Creator of some kind, though not necessarily the god of the Bible, though they said that personally, they believed that it was. In other words a creator-god of some sort was argued onto the table (they hoped) and then Which god could be argued by reference to the Bible.

[brunumb]

In another thread, it was said "...claim that making himself known to all would somehow abrogate our free will." In context, this seemed to reference god not making himself known to humanity.
If this assumption is correct, it seems there's a thought 'out there' that people say if god makes itself known to humanity, that this would negate or nullify free will.

I am also interested in hearing how the apologists tackle this one. I still don't understand how God making himself known to some is somehow different from God making himself known to all. Did those who engaged directly with God as described in the Bible have their free will compromised as a result?

ETA: God being known to all would certainly eliminate the need for all those middle-men claiming to speak on his behalf and requiring funds to allegedly help promote the message.

[nobspeople]

In another thread, it was said "...claim that making himself known to all would somehow abrogate our free will." In context, this seemed to reference god not making himself known to humanity.
If this assumption is correct, it seems there's a thought 'out there' that people say if god makes itself known to humanity, that this would negate or nullify free will.

ETA: God being known to all would certainly eliminate the need for all those middle-men claiming to speak on his behalf and requiring funds to allegedly help promote the message.

DING DING DING! We have a winner! I think those in 'control' of the church and religion are more interested in this type of thing over any 'good message'.

[TRANSPONDER]

In another thread, it was said "...claim that making himself known to all would somehow abrogate our free will." In context, this seemed to reference god not making himself known to humanity.
If this assumption is correct, it seems there's a thought 'out there' that people say if god makes itself known to humanity, that this would negate or nullify free will.

I am also interested in hearing how the apologists tackle this one. I still don't understand how God making himself known to some is somehow different from God making himself known to all. Did those who engaged directly with God as described in the Bible have their free will compromised as a result?

ETA: God being known to all would certainly eliminate the need for all those middle-men claiming to speak on his behalf and requiring funds to allegedly help promote the message.

I'd say there are two elements. One is the excuse of why there isn't evidence where there reasonably ought to me (uncannily akin to the 'why don't UFO's land on the White House Lawn?' Skeptics. Why the secrecy? The favourite argument is 'It would freak humanity out if they proved they exist'. So they just Reveal themselves to a few bods who can spread the word but not in a way that really add up to compelling evidence.

The other element is the Theist argument about God's reality eliminating the Faith i(which is Really the ticket to salvation) f it just became Knowledge is the apologetic here. So God has to operate in ways that provide evidence, but not in a way that proves anything when you look at it. Clever how God does that. Just as clever as how the UFO pilots wangle it so they let us know they're there but not so it is clear, unarguable evidence.

Cue: "The 'skeptics would never believe it even if God himself came down and said: 'Here I am.....Infidels!"

[nobspeople]

In another thread, it was said "...claim that making himself known to all would somehow abrogate our free will." In context, this seemed to reference god not making himself known to humanity.
If this assumption is correct, it seems there's a thought 'out there' that people say if god makes itself known to humanity, that this would negate or nullify free will.

I am also interested in hearing how the apologists tackle this one. I still don't understand how God making himself known to some is somehow different from God making himself known to all. Did those who engaged directly with God as described in the Bible have their free will compromised as a result?

ETA: God being known to all would certainly eliminate the need for all those middle-men claiming to speak on his behalf and requiring funds to allegedly help promote the message.

I'd say there are two elements. One is the excuse of why there isn't evidence where there reasonably ought to me (uncannily akin to the 'why don't UFO's land on the White House Lawn?' Skeptics. Why the secrecy? The favourite argument is 'It would freak humanity out if they proved they exist'. So they just Reveal themselves to a few bods who can spread the word but not in a way that really add up to compelling evidence.

The other element is the Theist argument about God's reality eliminating the Faith i(which is Really the ticket to salvation) f it just became Knowledge is the apologetic here. So God has to operate in ways that provide evidence, but not in a way that proves anything when you look at it. Clever how God does that. Just as clever as how the UFO pilots wangle it so they let us know they're there but not so it is clear, unarguable evidence.

Cue: "The 'skeptics would never believe it even if God himself came down and said: 'Here I am.....Infidels!"

Maybe there's more of a 'god/alien' connection than people and some ancient religious art indicates?

[TRANSPONDER]

If (as one or two have argued here) God is Not necessarily omniscient and (as non - or Limited - intervention suggests) not omnipotent, then an Alien being (in the Sci fi/Fantasy sense) is what we actually got. And why not more than one? That would make sense of that 'War in Heaven' as well as other religions and the Proxy wars...I mean "Holy" wars ...that get fought. Over to you, scriptwriters.

[nobspeople]

If (as one or two have argued here) God is Not necessarily omniscient and (as non - or Limited - intervention suggests) not omnipotent, then an Alien being (in the Sci fi/Fantasy sense) is what we actually got. And why not more than one? That would make sense of that 'War in Heaven' as well as other religions and the Proxy wars...I mean "Holy" wars ...that get fought. Over to you, scriptwriters.

It's not altogether hard to dismiss as a very likely potential, IMO. It makes a lot more sense, based on what we know. But, if one wants to live in the realm of 'what we don't know', I can see how the god or any god makes sense.