Willtysn89

I can see what the logic says however I would argue that through several lines of reasoning. 1) If free will is deterministic then we wouldn't need awareness to perform actions as they would be automatic, and not needing concsiousness to interact with our bodily forms. Logical argument to this would be that awareness isn't born of determinism but free will and the two go hand in hand, and thus you can still have a universe that came about through random chance. Which leads me to point to to refute this. 2) If free will goes hand in hand with random chance, and biology has evolved our brains to have this safety mechanism in which free will is perceived as an illusion to keep our sanity in tact and therefore it feels familiar and reasonable given the vunrebility of the human mind to concoct the idea of a God. I would refute this by saying that, if this safety mechanism was so to keep us from the truth then why is it we were able to work it out and this break down the walss of reality. Logical argument to this is that it is not natures garuntee that the wall it put into place for our survival is assured to do so, for if we so WILL it, we can scratch at the wall and tear it down. And I would refute this argument by this point. 3) If free will is the cause of random chance, and random chance was there in order to create the mechanism in place with which our brains would evolve in order to be able too cognize in such a way that it developed a psychological defence mechanism, and that the coming together of neurons in our brains is what brings this free will concept and determism by evolution together. I would argue this by saying that, there is no actual proof of evolution from one species to another, for if there were we would see loads of examples of this in the meusums across the globe. Logical argument to this would obviously be that the variences are so slight, that if you lined up every single male against the homosapein genetic liniage we would all look similar yet one side at one end of the spectrum would not be able to recognize the other. However I would refute all three lines of argument for the three lines of logcal arguments against the three creationist statements I make by saying the following. It has been proven that cells cannot add information, there are varinces within a species but not an entire mutation between one species and another. One would argue here that for example, sicle cell animia is an example of a genetic mutation within humans, however this is only true in the varience of the human species and not others and it does not show the exact evolution in which species evolve. Furthermore species are actually all shown together throghout history, even the dinosoaors are dated by scientist to have not exsisted at the same time as man, so how can we have evolved from them. To add to this if we were then to say well we are actually distent cousins of chimps then we would see that our DNA would be closer to theirs and we wouold see all the cross overs from chimps to humans inside the DNA. But instead what we find is, we are less closer to the primates than we are a baked potato. Meaning, we actually share more genes than a vegetable than we do monkeys. Back in the 1800s Darwin was actually given private funding to publish his works of the origin of species, and apparantly by the Rothwchilds, a powerful banking family who were establishing the federal resever banking system at the time. Whats interesting here is that, Darwin was actually a Christian and yet most of the modern world views that argue against creationism is Dawrins theory of evolution. At the time wrote an excerpt at the end of his paper called "The Prooblem with The Theory" in which he stated that if the theory of evolution does not prove the natural selection and evolution from one speechies to another, his theory would be in big trouble. This excerpt at the end of his paper however, goes seemingly unoticed as if it wasn't ment to be. Now although there is no way for me to prove this, heres what I think. Since Dawrin was a man of God, went to church and got on with it like everyone else. For back then lots of people believed Darwin but it didn't stop them from being Christians, isn't it strange now that most athiest now use Darwin as an arugment when actually its theory lies in jeopordy due to new discoveries. And it sure wasn't a Christian school that ever said Darwin was right or wrong, his name was never mentioned in the bible of course. Yet it was the schools of our modern secular society which teaches it even though its actually technically a beleif since there is no proof to evidence genetic mutation. And if you believe in the new world order stuff, then if God was never a threat to them then why stump this part of science out. Because if they could knowing it isn't true then they certainly wouldn't be botheed by 'new' information in which it could potentially de-rail their agenda, no. Instead they would have been fine with it being added there, because they would have known full heartedly that there was no 'God' and therefore nothing to be worried about. However it is becaise they too know that in this it does add stength to the notion that there may be an intelligent designer, which says to me that they too must have a beleif in our God. This is just to list a few, another is the fact the universe is so finally tuned. In that if you just changed one thing then all of it falls appart. Another is the fibonachi numbers, in that every single thing in nature, to measurments in our fingers, the petals on flowers even inside our DNA is this patern. It can be found anywhere and it has baffelled people for centuries, this aloing with the probability of the universe exsisting in the first place. Now as I said before, I was fully athiest 2 months ago. Now I have seen enough to be able to at least look and re-examine things again. But how did I even come to all of this, well things started happening in my life which lead me back to it, things which I did not go looking for but they came to me, which is what lead me as an athiest to asbsolutley investigate as much as possible and when I did this is what I found, the expeiricnes with what I thought is God are very personal and even if I said they wouldn't make sense because no one was there except me. But I know if those things had happened to any other athiest then they too would have at least had the thought to investigate. Because in not doing im only closing my mind off and not being open enough to at least consider Christianity once more. With that done what was left to do for me was confirm three things. 1) Is there a higher being? Yes -Because of the personal things which happened to me, a man couldn't have managed. -Because of what I began to discover because I had these experiences to re-examine what evidence is out there. 2) If so, is this the right one? Yes -Because of more personal things which happened to me. -Because of things I had seen happen to other people. 3) If this is the right one, is what is being taught true and right? Yes -Because of seeing hisotical evidence for the bible, the placing of the Isrialites and witniessing Jesus death. -Because not only this but I have seen proof in the stars, corroponsing in the Bible which I saw though another persons story. Except he was able to show me picturs. This last part I touch on about Jesus death, sure there are loads of statements that say there is no hisorical evidence for his exsistence. However there are two things wrong with this than even I as at this point as an athiest thought this... Back then records of history were not kept like they are today, one example is the destruction of the Cananite city of Hatsor (you can see this in recoroded hisootry), that the city was destroyed by the Isrialite people. Back then if it had been any other civilization they would have claimed responsiliby for it. One event that actually demonstrates this is a mention on the earlist mention of the Isrialites, on an Egyptian plaque. Stating all of the peoples they had conqured (mainly Libya) hower the last two sentances say... "The House of Israil Has Been Shorn" This is imperical data as not only are they mentioned, but are so by the Egyptians. And in the same way had any other civilisation been responsible for what happened at Hatsor, this would have been screamed out by whoever had done it, and yet none other than the Isrialites claim responsiblity. Okay so, we have confirmed that there were a peoples called the Isrialites. But how does this prove at all the Bible, or its most important figure, Jesus. Well that would have to be the ones closest to him right? So we look at the desciples and see what they report, and again. Back then history was recorded in a very different way because they were totally different times. They didn't have PC's or even pencils to document with, so with what they did have we would have to assume that they were a little limited in being able to record what they had seen. We see the dsicples writte in the new testiment that when Jesus died, to make sure he was dead the roman solider pierced his side with his spear. And that blood and water could been seen coming out. Now even to me this sounded a little odd as when you cut someone they bleed, and no water comes out. However what I learned next was amazing. In a medical journal it was found that dying in this way you would sufforcate, this is why Jesus legs were not broken because he had already sufforcated and died. So there was no reason to do this to eliviate his pain, because that was too late. Which is why they did with the other two because they were still alive. So what does this mean? Well on its own just how he died, however all of Jesus disciples were all brutally killed for what they beleived in. All of this shortly after the ressurection of Christ, however they got the chance to renounce their faith and live. Now if these people were lying, surely at the cost of their life they would not have died for a lie, I couldn't think of anyone that would ever do that. And we see this mentioned in the Bible and it being tested in the real world we live in today. Tell me why would the disciple make a statement that he knew to be false without even knowing it to be medically true? Ill leave you with that.

As someone who is struggeling with faith what im looking for the reasons for rather than against, i have already exshusted the question s for against. But its all left me in a state of doubt.

Just to clarify, are you saying its more likely that there is a God because freewill is definatly free choice?

Ive heard that the Bible is written by many many authors, from many lands backgrounds and positions within socienty and many hadnt even met or shared these texts with each other until the formation of the early church. How is it possible that this same message rings true. I beleive in one church too, all others seem not to be of Christ but of themselvs, which is exactly what Christ warned everyone about. But I guess its just these minor little questions I have left which are holding me back along with the mentions of his coming and birth. Could you if possible help me to shed light on this?

You know with everything that has gone through my mind, considering all other faiths and scientific explanation. My mind lead me to a very worrying thought, my worry is what if it all didn't happen and Jesus was some kind of made up conspiracy? Im not saying this to casue any offence, I really do want to know Jesus but what made me have this awful thought was the fact that he was prophisied before in the Old Testiment, which makes it somewhat possible that someone appointed him to be Christ at a certain time in order to make people believe. And im looking for any reason possible not to beleive this. But then I think, what reason at all would there be for this, its not like the Isrialites were powerful or trying to take over the world like the romans were. I just hate having all these doubts, I hate it and I know how happy I really would be if I did believe it. Im just so lost its driving me crazy.

So iv'e been pondering this for a while now, ive already worked out that out of all the faiths Christianity is the one that fits the model best in terms of how the universe was created, amongst the other faiths. But now standing against science and fictional speculation I came up with this which I also think might have just beaten science by a fraction, but still these findings are interesting. Please let me know what you think guys! If free will is an illusion then why is it that we were designed to be aware one day that it could be a possibility? And if free will isn't deterministic then who is making the desicions? Who is in control? The illision itself wouldn't work without the awareness being there to interpret it. So if there is only determinism then the illision needs to be there for us to be ignorant of it. Which means determinism cannot exsist with us being aware of it or being illuded by it, because awareness cannot exist without the illision. And subsequently if the illision was vital for us as humans to keep out sanity intact, why is it that we were programed with the ability to evolve to the point where we can cognize the possibility for this entire consideration in the first place. By this deduction is it correct to then infer that freewill is something that we have as a matter of fact rather than an illusion concocted by chemicals in our brain? For if that were the case wouldn't we be like mindless entities, like characters in a videogame that only needs code to run on without awareness? This says to me that freewill and awareness go hand in hand, and are neither deterministic illusions that are only vital for our survival, but maybe for something more. Something that all humans can identify with, freedom. All of us have this feeling that we are in some way free, free to think and to speak and to love and experience the world about us. The closest theory that almost negates all theology is simulation theory, for all we know, right now we could all be part of a massive digital simulation created by an advanced civilization. And we are all just running on servers serving a purpose for the coders who made the program. If thats the case, could they be using religion as a way of seeing how we as humans react to it, which ones we choose? Maybe we could be on a TV show somewhere, hell maybe even game of thrones became a hit througout the wider reality/dimension that being broacdast by the servers! Its an interesting thought right, and no matter how you look at it first off, it seems scarily hard to deny that this could be not just possible, but likely above all others! In this way I will present two senarios that the coders are working in by the intention of why they created us and what for... 1) We are for their entertainment and everything we experience is just for a huge universal LOL. 2) They are trying to learn about the ancient civilizations of old and if possible see if we end up making a reality within our own just like they did. In the first theory, if this was the case it would be very hard to tell indeed or refute that such a thing was happening. Something that add weight to this is the fact that photons of light can move through atoms which breaks the universal law of energy conversion, in that energy cannot be created or be destroyed. And just like in programming, you find errors and holes and back doors in the software. Wouldn't it be scary if these photons there part of that which leads to the other side? It sounds very possible since these photons also move at the speed of light which creates time lag, so if these particles can break that time lag then they can move and exsit outside of time. Implying that they can be on the other side or at least have something to do with it. However as much as all of this seems very possible, I would argue that it isn't. Simply by way of working out the problem of free will, for if we as the program could work out the illusion of free will that kept us from the truth, then it wouldn't be a stretch to think that we coulc come up with a way to get back at them somehow through the program, as in a sense we would be like AI on judgement day, coming up through the smaller reality to take place in the larger one that created us. Now if such an advanced civilization were clever enough way beyong our cognigitve abilities to be able to create such a universe, you'd think that they would have at least considered security mesures to put in place so that we never had enough 'freewill' or 'awareness' to be able to figure it out, and whats more we already have figured it out and are already many many scientists across the globe working day and night to figure out the universe we are living in. It is possible that the programmers just have another universe that would serve as a barrier between our world and theirs, but whos to stop us from diconeccting from them and just living in our own universe? Well if we did that it is possible that we would just be switched off and we would be none the wiser for it, but if both cases were true wouldn't they already be trying to prevent us from working it out. In the final theory, their experiement could just be a test to see IF we work it out. And if we do what happens then? Do we pass the test and win a special prize? Maybe they do the oppersite eand just collect the results and switch us of, maybe we will never pass the test and be a failure to them. However there is something very massive that punches a huge hole in all of this. Back to free will again, because you cannot really program free will without the context of enviroment first, that is you need to be able to calculate all the possible choices a person could ever make within the enviromnent they exsit in, which for a super advanced civilization wouldn't be a problem. There is something striking about this. And thats probability. Everything has a probability, every single thing we can see has one. To the most likely and the most unusual, there is a number for all of them. Now the universes probaility is actually very very small, in that mathematically speaking it is very unlikely for a universe like ours to have been created, and even more so for human life to be here. WHich means that life itself is very uncommon and unique. Mathematics is the language of nature, and even in another reality maths would be the ruling thing there as it is here. So if this universe we live in is a computer similation, our calculations would reveal that it was very possible for the universe to have exsisted because another had created it, but life could have been the variable that was just a very rare occurance. Now this can't be true since the calculations we have show that both the universe and human life are rare occurances. This says to me that this canot be a simulated reality by a higher civlization or dimension because they couldn't just fake the results, since math is a finate language of nature that cannot change. It is exact. One example to demonstrate just how exact it is, consider the model of the big bang. At this time if you were to count all the things that there were just before the moment of the expansion, you would have to conclude that there is only one thing there, a singlar thing and not two singluar things. And when the universe expanded many things were created, gas, starts, planets and millions of other things we humans have. Phones, TV's, money, books and all sorts. So we can say that the state of the universe mathematically speaking, using more and less than terms. The current state of the universe is 2< in that there is more than one thing in the universe and not just 1 or 1<. In another way the state of the universe in numarical terms before anything happened was 0, but to get something you need to take somehting, so it took 1. Making the state of reality change from 0, to 1 and -1. 1 being the reality we are living in, and -1 being the hole that was created in being taken away. Just as when you dig a hole it creates a mound, and leaves a hole behind. So too does the universe behave this way in mathematical terms. So maths being as exact at this, and the results we have for what probability states cannot be faked, what are we left to think then. It leaves us back to what free will is, and what or why it is. If it is not programmed then what is its purpose, for us to have freedom and love must in some way show us that freewill is a byproduct of a love of somekind.Well for me I personally think from this that there is a God, because he is light, and since Photons are light, can move through time and space and even be in two places at once. And freewill not being an illision, born from chaos or determinism or some kind of programmed script. Sure even I know that it is a stretch to say for sure ther is a God by everything I have said. And that makes perfect sense because all of this doesn't prove it, its only a beleif I have through my own experiences that I beleive in this. But I wanted to post this because I think its interesting that scinence and religion in ways do go hand in hand, and not that by using an analogy that God is real. But more over that religion does have a rather interesting prescidence wihtin science that I think goes hand in hand with each other.

Thankyou for all these scriptures, and yes that is the reason! We used to do it in my Church since I was a baby, but I never understood its meaning until about the age of 7, and at that age the story really was central to my life as I want it to be now, I will be making a post soon in the welcome section as there its been a very crazy week for me, but I am really thrilled to be here and thankyou again for your kind responce!

Sorry I didn't mention before, but iv'e moved to a new area and started a new church where they don't do holy communion as it is a non-denominational church. And with the type of work I do I need to be in a steady routine, in my old church holy communion was taken on a Sunday, but since Im at church on Sunday im ujnable to do that. So this is idea really isn't as new age as it sounds, but im wondering if the practise of holy communion (breaking the bread and wine) at home is a suitible or approrpiate act. I do consult the bible often but there is no mention about this sort of thing in there which why in the end I decided to reach out to the net. God doesn't seem to have a specific answer for me other than the focus should be more on the bible, which im in agreement with as I do with you guys. But I do miss the practise of holy communion and wonder if it is still okay to practise it while being at home?

As well as following Jesus in my heart, I also like to make him and the father offerings but am concerned whether this would be classifyed as magic. But I will be honest with you all here to give as much detail as I can. When I wake up in the morning I go to my table which has a Golden cross upon it, either side are two specially made cups. One with a sun to represent the day and another with a moon to represent the night. The first thing I do is pour water into the cup with the sun and offer it to Jesus, when I drink from it I imagine im driking the blood of Christ to remind me of the most important lesson of all. That he died for our sins. I thank the Lord for this new day and request his blessings and guidence throughout the day. The same thing happens at nightime, with the only difference being that I make special prayers for things at night, such as relatives, loved ones, global isssues etc. Im just wondering what people here think, when It comes to talking to God I certainly don't get any bad feeling from his side of things. But in terms of the Bible where I lack Biblical knowledge, is this form of offering to the Lord in alignment with the teachings of the Lord?