You do understand that this is basic materialism, right? If you actually believe that everything is simply matter in motion, then there's no need for any form of God in the picture whatever. It is simply atoms doing what atoms do. So who is the argument aimed at? Christians will never accept that we're simply material beings, so an argument that is based on that premise is a non-started. — Wayfarer

I suppose the reason why I asked is that I am curious how religious believers reconcile the findings of modern science with traditional ideas like free will and Heaven and Hell. I am not sure that I would call myself a materialist, because I don't know if everything that exists is simply matter in motion. There could very well be more to existence than what we can see/measure. But, if we have learned anything from centuries of scientific advancement, it is that we are inexorably linked to the rest of the universe. We are made of the same particles as stars. We are material beings. Certainly, human beings are not just like any old material thing. We are extraordinarily complex material things that are capable of a much wider variety of actions than a rock, for example. But, to deny that we are material beings would be willful ignorance in my view.

Religious believers may insist that we have an immaterial soul in addition to our material bodies, but the idea that an immaterial thing could influence matter is problematic.

-Phil

Actually, the universe is non-deterministic, and has been known to be non-deterministic for quite some time. The claim that everything has been predetermined since the Big Bang is based on long-discarded 17th century physics. There is nothing in science that rules out free will, and the biologist, Kenneth R. Miller, just recently came out with a book explaining that it is premature to claim that there is no free will. Basically, there are models already proposed by neuroscientists that leave open the possibility for freewill. The idea that since the brain is based on physics, there is no free will, is an overly simplistic one. The physics that gives rise to consciousness may also give rise to free will. In science, we have to deal with emergent phenomenon and reductionist methods only get us so far. Otherwise, we would only have one science discipline -- physics, and we could discard biochemistry, psychology and economics, etc. — LD Saunders

Right, so in that sense, our actions may not have been fully determined since the Big Bang. However, even if the behavior of elementary particles is non-deterministic, that still doesn't change the fact that it is the collective behavior of these particles that produces us, including our thoughts and actions. It may not be determined what exactly a particular particle will do, but it is clear that we don't decide what each particle in our brain does. As long as it is true that our minds are the result of physical phenomenon in the brain, I just can't see how human beings can be considered ultimately responsible for their actions.

From what I understand, when we say that a particular phenomenon is emergent, we are talking about a complex process that could, in principle, be described in more basic terms. However, it is not plausible to list every particle and its interactions with every other particle in a system, so we invent new vocabularies that help us grasp what is going on. If an ice cube is turning into liquid water under the hot sun, we say that it is melting. But, if we wanted to, we could also describe the complex interaction of the photons of light with each of the molecules of water. Two different ways of talking about the same phenomenon. I think the same can be said about the human mind.

Thank you for mentioning Miller, I'll have to look up his work!

-Phil

Thanks for the reply!

Supposing that it would be "wrong" for God to "judge" based on His omniscience would necessarily mean that one believes He causes an individual to sin. This actually limits His sovereignty, as it is not necessary to cause events that they may come about. He may know all things without directly causing such. — Lone Wolf

I was assuming that God caused the universe to exist, which is widely held by religious believers. If an individual "sins", it is because he has thought or acted in a certain way, and the cause of this thought or action is ultimately traceable to the big bang (a consequence of being made of atoms that obey the laws of physics).

So then, He does know why we act as we do, but He chooses to not intervene at all times in order that we may have personhood. — Lone Wolf

What would it mean for God to intervene? If God wanted to, he could change the neurophysiology or soul of a person so that they are virtuous, but if He did that, the human being would be no more responsible for that than if the person remained sinful.

-Philip