God leaves some to persish.

Be careful with that glory thing. That's just a human artifact.

 

The choices made by a character in a book are not free-will choices. They are choices made by the author. The book character has no functional awareness either way. We have functional awareness.

Creativity would be seriously hampered without allowance for free will. Progressive evolution is not based on micromanagement.

 

So you think all of the reasonableness of the theology in the Bible is untouchable and unquestionable. Maybe someday you'll outgrow the parts of it that are just enslavement of the mind for the purposes of controlling a population. The flaws within the Bible cannot be readily discerned by staying confined to the Bible.

 

The fact that we make choices quite in keeping with our wills is no evidence at all that we choose from undetermined possibilities.

The fact that we are subject to change is evidence that subject; we are not sovereign. We are not necessary; we are contingent in our being.
If contingent being exists, necessary being must exist. The proposition the contingent beings choose from undetermined possibilities is nonsense;
it is self-contradictory.

God is necessary; everything else is contingent. God has no potential to change. God has no potential to come to know, to come to emote, to come to will, to come to be or not be. God is what He is necessarily. God is absolutely inviolate. God is holy.
Therefore, God is ,to us, our Author and our Creator. We come to know. We come to emote. We come to will. We come to be what God has already written.

 

How does one go about determining if his/her considerations/analytical thinking are coming from an undetermined possibility?

 

No particle of matter can occupy the same (position relative to the balance of matter) space in any two increments of time.
All matter is subject to constant and exhaustive spatial and temporal change. Anything subject to change is subject; it is not sovereign. It is not necessary; it is contingent in its being. If contingent being exists, necessary being must exist. To date, I am left to believe that the God of the bible uniquely fulfills the Omni-implications of a necessary being.

I cannot honestly and logically deny that contingent being actually exists. Therefore, I cannot honestly and logically deny that necessary being exists.

The majority of what can be known about the God of the bible can be known quite apart from the bible. The majority of the ideas about God in the bible can also be found in the balance of His creation. My understanding of God is discovered by over laying the trajectory of those ideas and extrapolating that trajectory through the ideas about God that are only found in the bible, such as the gospel of Jesus Christ. To date, to the best of my understanding, God is necessary, and everything else is contingent.

 

I am left to believe that I am a contingent being. I am a complex of actuality and potentiality. I actually exist, but I have the potential to change including the potential to no longer actually exist. I am contingent in my being. Therefore, I know contingently. I cannot have necessary knowledge. Contingent beings approach certainty through the exclusion process wherein doubt is removed by testing. To contingent beings, its not so much that ideas are really ever proved as it is that all of the other ideas considered have been disproved. What remains is what we are left to believe. Then, that is tested, and so on, and so on. The closest thing we contingent beings have to proof positive is experimental repeatability.

Most of what can be known about the God of the bible can be found outside of the bible. Most of the ideas about God in the bible can be found in the balance of creation. I discover my understanding of God by extrapolating the trajectories of those ideas through the ideas about God that can only be found in the bible such as the gospel of Jesus Christ.

 

I guess that 'experimental repeatability' is what allows you to redundantly repeat the same thing over and over without offering any proof of your claims. Proof= evidence or argument that compels the mind to accept an assertion as true. That post comes nowhere close to answering the question that I posed to you... "How does one go about determining if his/her considerations/analytical thinking are coming from an undetermined possibility?"

 

Contingent beings choosing from undetermined possibilities is nonsensical because it implies that necessary being comes to know the choice of contingent being. Necessary being has no potential to come to know. Necessary being has no potential at all. Necessary being is what it is necessarily.

We are obviously contingent beings. We are a complex of intellectual, emotional, volitional and corporeal processes. A process is a prescribed sequence of changes. We are defined by our changes. Anything subject to change is subject; it is not sovereign. It is not necessary; it is contingent in its being.

Necessary being is absolutely inviolate. Necessary being is holy. Necessary being is not contingent or subject to anything in anyway; not in its knowing, emoting, willing or being.

 

Just for the record: Are you attempting to add another label in substitution for the term 'God' when you make reference to "necessary being"?

Also, is that response above suppose to answer the question " "How does one go about determining if his/her considerations/analytical thinking are coming from an undetermined possibility?" "

 

I have answered your question. I will rephrase my answer.

We do not determine we discover.
We discover via the exclusion process wherein doubt is removed by testing.
We formulate hypothesis from theory and then subject it to testing. What remains is what we are left to believe.

My working hypothesis is that we are contingent beings and therefore do not choose from undetermined possibilities. To date, that hypothesis stands. I have no logical reason to suppose that we do choose from undetermined possibilities because I am left to believe that we are contingent beings.

 

'contingent beings'.... contingent upon what?
Another member asked you what are the testing methods? I will extend that question by adding to it... What are the testing methods that will allow one to discover what is that/those undetermined possibility(ies)? What is that "necessary being"? You are talking in circles and being redundant.

 

Wow, the above would be to me the actions of an evil god not a loving God. I would never follow such a god.

 

Consciousness can activate and experience simulations that branch from either past actualized history or unactualized past probable history. However, after exit from the simulation, if the change imposed by the new branch is not significant, it is not recorded. Thus it was an undetermined possibility and remained so.

God changed his mind in Jonah 3:10

 

Uniquely huh? So you think the anthropomorphic monster of the Bible is an ideal representation of God.

Everything you know about God is filtered through the Bible. I say that's not enough knowledge about God. You're missing some other knowledge about Him that's in the balance of His creation.

 

"Jon 3:9 Who can tell if God will turn and repent, and turn away from his fierce anger, that we perish not?" This verse also shows that even the King of Ninevah was uncertain as to whether or not their repenting from evil would change the mind of God. However, God being Omniscient, He already knew what they would do, so IMHO, God sent Jonah to Ninevah for the sole purpose of delivering a 'warning'... the warning worked. Verse 10 merely shows the mercy that God has toward those who turn away from evil and do according to the will of God.

 

The maker of all that is goes out of his way to make sure we know what a great guy he is. Wonderful.

Nice to know that it helps to get on his good side if we feed his ego.

 

Then what can you honestly and logically argue that does or does not exist in context to your claims?