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.

Although He could have easily dictated our every move, He chose to give us a degree of free will, but no human can determine the consequences. We chose what we do, but He has already predetermined the consequences. It comparable to the laws of physics. We can choose to do particular actions, such s dropping a book, but we cannot change that unless a stronger force is in place, that the book will fall. We can then, in a sense, foreknow that the book will fall.

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.

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

I'm not a theist, but I would suggest reading Romans 9.

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). — Philip

Not sure I follow you here. A sin did not cause the universe to exist.

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

He could, but He desired that humans be created in His image, and have a degree of free-will. When we were initially created (based on Genesis) we were good, but we could also reason for ourselves. Initially, we did not have a sinful nature, but a perfect nature. Yet, we still chose sin. Thus, He created us as a person. We can choose to accept and believe Him when salvation is offered, or we can choose to continue in corruption.

but a perfect nature — Lone Wolf

On theism, only God is perfect, though. A perfect nature would be incapable of sinning.

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.

The basis for my statement is found in Genesis 1:27 and 31.
"So God created man in His own image, in the image of God He created him..."

"Then God saw everything that He had made, and indeed it was very good."
We were created "very good" in the beginning. What is good?

The statement Christ made in Luke 18:19 "Why do you call me good? No one is good but One, that is God" gives us reason to believe that "good" is also perfect, meaning complete and without fault, as God is the only one who is perfect and also the only one who is good.

Reasoning in and of itself is not a fault, but rather an attribute of personhood, hence the ability for Adam and Eve to make such choices. We were created to be individual, thinking persons.

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

Philip: It has not been established that we don't make decisions. Just think of it this way --- if the mind decides to do something, that is still a causal chain.

that still doesn't change the fact that it is the collective behavior of these particles that produces us, including our thoughts and actions. — Philip

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-starter.

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

while considering the traditional idea of God's judgement — Philip

And what is that idea? It seems to me there are many ideas, some taking account of a God who knows in advance what we will do and others where God and man are understood differently. After all, it isn't as if no theists have spotted the problems until now.

To just engage with this unspecified 'traditional idea' is to engage with a straw man.

The physics that gives rise to consciousness may also give rise to free will. — LD Saunders

But what is free will? There's an ordinary sense of it that we all understand. So and so did this or that no one 'put a gun to his head.' We use it in calculating praise and blame, successfully but very loosely. In that sense, free will already exists. It's hard to see what the religious version of this could be other than a bigger version of this same idea, one that justifies the evil in the world while keeping God's hands clean.

The bright side of this religious free will is that humans are understood to be outside the law-of-large-numbers-deterministic 'machinery' of nature. That troubled teen down the street can theoretically turn on an infinitely small time, no slave of his so-called conditioning. That he tortured animals yesterday theoretically tells us nothing about his mysteriously free future. I can't find this plausible. I find it more plausible that machine learning will become eerily accurate in a way that threatens the religious understanding of free will.

I have been interested in the topic of free will for some time, and while considering the traditional idea of God's judgement of individual lives, a thought has persisted for me. Not only is the idea of God's judgement nonsensical, it seems to me that God is the only conceivable being who cannot rightly judge human beings. That is because if there is anyone who is ultimately responsible for the way we live out our lives, it is God. This is assuming that God created the universe and that we are part of the universe (made of atoms). We as human persons can judge ourselves and other people to some degree, but I believe that this is ultimately for pragmatic reasons. We hold each other accountable in order to maintain a peaceful society. But God has no pragmatic reason to judge human beings, and if He is omniscient, then He is fully aware of the precise reasons we act as we do, down to the last firing neuron.

What is your opinion on this idea? Do you agree or disagree? I would love to hear your thoughts! — Philip

I agree. I don't believe in this God you mention, but I did at one time and wrestled with this kind of question. For me it would just never add up. Some perhaps deal with this cognitive dissonance by redecorating their defeat with compliments to God's mysterious ways. In other words, they just accept that their fundamental theory of existence doesn't make sense. The bug becomes a feature. God is not absurd, He's just wonderfully mysterious. It's as if the idea of a divine, benevolent intelligence behind al things is just too attractive to sacrifice over a little absurdity and confusion. All that's need is a new verbal coat of paint.

To just engage with this unspecified 'traditional idea' is to engage with a straw man. — Londoner

Straw god, in this case. They abound on the Web.

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. — Philip

There are actually quite a few religious scientists; Wikipedia has a list. Of course it's true that science challenges some forms of religious belief, but more so the literalistic, not to say fundamentalist, forms, that insist on the literal truth of scriptures. For those who interpret such texts symbolically, the fact that they're not literally true, may not have the same significance.

An anecdote: the scientist who first published the idea of what later came to be called 'the Big Bang' was a Jesuit priest, by the name of Georges Lemaître, in the 1920's. Decades later, when acceptance of this idea had become widespread, the then-Pope declared that this theory suggested the Biblical doctrine of 'creation ex nihilo' (which it surely seems to do, in my view.) But Lemaître was embarrassed by this, as he felt that matters of faith ought to be kept separate from science, and asked the then-science advisor to the Vatican to tactfully suggest His Holiness refrain from using this argument as a polemical point (which he apparently acceded to).

Speaking of astrophysics, the esteemed scientist Vera Rubin, who many believe should have won the Nobel prize for the discovery of dark matter, said "In my own life, my science and my religion are separate. I'm Jewish, and so religion to me is a kind of moral code and a kind of history. I try to do my science in a moral way, and, I believe that, ideally, science should be looked upon as something that helps us understand our role in the universe." (quoted in Wikipedia)

I am not sure that I would call myself a materialist — Philip

But then you go on to say:

We are material beings. — Philip

Recall the old Biblical metaphor - man was fashioned from clay, into which God breathed the breath of life ('pneuma' being 'breath' and also 'spirit'). And I think it is still an apt metaphor. Aside from those in our brain, the atoms which comprise our body are completely changed every seven years or so. So what is the organising principle that brings all of this complexity together and allows it to act and perceive as a simple unity? Nowadays we tend to feel that science has or will have all this figured out, but I'm sceptical about that, as in this case, we're the subject of the study, and not simply the object of analysis.

I think this is just reworded argument from evil. Difficult to tap dance this point back and forth across the line between philosophy and theology. Or between what we believe to be true based on reason and what we believe to be true based on faith.

Assuming we are conceding for the sake of argument there is an omniscient God, than the basis for free will lies in the concept of compensating goods. In short - God allows free will, and the less than perfect results there of, because it is a better state of affairs than a predestined perfection.

If there were such a thing as god, wouldn't it be such that it wouldn't pass judgement nor do anything else in any capacity or else jeopardize free will, being omniscient. Therefore, if such a thing as a god did anything, even say, send his son to pass on his teachings, he would be eliminating free will as he would see the final outcome of this. Or at least he would limit it.

The concepts under discussion really need some refinement. Liberty, judgment, God, man, are being used as polemical placeholders rather than as tools for understanding.

To give some examples of questions that would bring the main issues to the forefront:

Is freedom the capacity to do what you want, or to do what you should?

Is God's judgment a voluntary (i.e. non-necessary, i.e., contingent) action? If we posit that God does not partake of contingency (a common assertion in many schools of theology), does that mean that God is "forced to do" what he does; and does that reduce his freedom, or his dignity, or both?

What is the part of man that "sins"?

Is freedom the capacity to do what you want, or to do what you should? — Mariner

Couldn't it be both? I'm glad you brought this up, though. If freedom is doing what you should, then no one sins freely. But if no one sins freely, then we cannot be held accountable for sin, thus making hell unjust punishment.

and does that reduce his freedom, or his dignity, or both? — Mariner

What say you to your own question here?

Is God's judgment a voluntary (i.e. non-necessary, i.e., contingent) action? If we posit that God does not partake of contingency (a common assertion in many schools of theology), does that mean that God is "forced to do" what he does; and does that reduce his freedom, or his dignity, or both?

as a theological position - God does not exist, as we would define it, as occupying some space in a period of time. If God is outside time and space, is anything we would call an action possible ? I would think anything we would call an action to mean some change over some period of time. God has no need to act.

If we are allowing the existence of a God, who is all powerful, and omniscient. Than most arguments about His actions, or motives, fall on the simple premise that we could actually understand or know in any real way them if we saw them.

What say you to your own question here? — Thorongil

I say that God's judgment is necessary (i.e. non-contingent), but that this does not reduce his freedom or his dignity. God cannot condone evil, because he is holy (and the definition of holy includes the inability to condone evil).

However, it must be noted that (at least in Christian theology) God's judgment is not the final word. There is also his mercy. Mercy, again by definition, involves a negative judgment (which is necessary), but mercy supersedes that judgment -- and this is the epitome of God's freedom.

There Philip, there are verses in the bible that support your deterministic view of our moral decisions. For example, and I am sure I can find more verse, but there is a verse that says basically that GOD turns the King's heart whatever way he chooses. Also, in the story of Moses and the king of Egypt, GOD says he harden the king's heart so that he would not listen to Moses no matter what, AND he gives a reason for why do does it, "so that the Egyptians may know that I am GOD."

In that story, it also says that the king harden his own heart, and I think it says that first. So, it seems, both are said. Which, constantly in the bible, free will and determinism are put side to side. The most clear example is not unbelievers but believers. Jesus says "No one can come to me UNLESS the father draws him to me" or something of that sort. And also, it says, those who are born again are not born of the flesh or OF THE WILL OF MAN, but of GOD. Which means, if you are a believer in GOD or/and Jesus as GOD, you did not will that to be. And the clearest evidence is "no one seeks GOD."

And consider this verse: "What GOD has made crooked, who can make that straight?" Now the context of that verse may not be referring to souls or a human moral character, but given the totality of the argument, (especially that no one become "born-again" of their own will), make it seem like that verse is not talking about roads, but about human beings.

The question remains, how then can GOD judge a person who he has made crooked. Again let me say here that I do not believe GOD makes people crooked(sinners) in that he tells them to sin, but in that he allows them to reject his word; also, he allows them to be born to parents that rejected his word. Consider that he tells his people constantly to not marry wives that are not Hebrews because they will "surely" turn your hearts away and the hearts of your children. If everyone had free will to choose what every they wanted, it wouldn't matter what family you are born into or who your mother is or father is. It wouldn't be harder for GOD to make a Christian out of someone born in a Muslim home, and it wouldn't matter how you were raised, GOD would still be able to make you straight.

Yet, we find in the bible over and over again, especially in the book of Kings, that your upbringing and surroundings do play a role, and it almost seem like a deterministic role as to what you will believe. "Raise them up in the way to go, and when they are old they will not depart." To say that there is no deterministic element to moral behavior I believe ignore all evidence in all areas of life. Consider fatherless home statistics. Every child that is born today, GOD knows who their parents are, where they will grow up, who will be their greatest influences, etc. and will you really say that none of these things will have an effect on their moral character?

The person that ask this question was focused on the issue from a metaphysic, micro-level, atom based viewpoint, which, given I am not trained in physics, it would be hard to argue his point from that aspect, however, from a social level, and even a theological level, it seem absurd to suggest that the moral environment of a soul as no impact on the moral character of that soul. Here is where I would suggest that despite all this, GOD still has the ability, and I would say the responsibility to judge the world, but I would also add that Universal salvation is the conclusion that I arrived that, which is not to say the absent of punishment for moral action, but the absence of eternal separation from GOD, which is metaphysically impossible in any case, but those who believe in eternal separation, I suppose will not argue a metaphysically separation because it is written everything that happens in hell happens in the present of GOD, obviously he is omnipresent.

But I guest what they will mean by eternal separation is that GOD will stop trying to convince a person to believe in his word. Although I believe that every person has free will, because their metaphysical/moral environment, which I believe dictates who they are, is completely unique to them, yet, I believe in universal salvation because I believe the one constant in every metaphysical/moral environment is a omnipresent GOD, who works to bring about both justice and mercy.