Posts Tagged ‘free will’

“Free-will” and “Knowledge of good and evil”

November 9, 2017

One’s point is reasonable. Knowledge of good and evil and then to decide for the right on one’s own free-will is a sign of maturity and is praiseworthy. 

Thread: “Where was god???? “Debating Christianity and Religion Forum Index -> Theology, Doctrine, and Dogma


Post 39: 
[Replying to post 37 by D—-y]

D—-y wrote:
Here is what I wrote:
“You should read the bible. Genesis 2:17 17but you must not eat from the tree of the knowledge of good and evil, for when you eat from it you will certainly die.”

Since god did not want to eat from the tree and thus have knowledge of good and evil. Without knowing good and evil how could one have free will?”

One’s point is reasonable. Knowledge of good and evil and then to decide for the right on one’s own free-will is a sign of maturity and is praiseworthy.
The narrators/scribes/translators/clergy seem to understand the phenomenon incorrectly. Moses was given both the Law and the Discrimination by YHVH, please:

[2:53] Then We forgave you thereafter, that you might be grateful.
[2:54] And remember the time when We gave Moses the Book and the Discrimination*, that you might be rightly guided.
[2:55] And remember the time when Moses said to his people: ‘O my people, you have indeed wronged yourselves by taking the calf for worship; turn you therefore to your Maker, and kill your evil desires; that is the best for you with your Maker.’ Then He turned towards you with compassion. Surely, He is Oft-Returning with compassion, and is Merciful.
[2:56] And remember when you said: ‘O Moses, we will by no means believe thee until we see Allah face to face;’ then the thunderbolt overtook you, while you gazed.
* knowledge of good and evil to exercise free-will.


Islam always spread by peace and with peace

April 8, 2014

The viewers should access the following link to know the context of the discussion; and only then one should form one’s own sincere and independent opinion.

paarsurrey | April 8, 2014 at 4:16 pm

@anaivethinker | April 3, 2014 at 10:33 pm
@Howie | April 8, 2014 at 1:47 pm
“Islam was started by the tip of the sword” Unquote

There is no teachings of violence in Quran/Islam/Muhammad; absolutely none; and Islam/Quran promote nothing but peace.

The Meccans persecuted Muslims at Mecca; imprisoned them, killed many among them. They did not allow Muslims any free will or any freedom of religion; to the point that the Muslims had to emigrate from Mecca to Medina to save their lives and enjoy religious freedom; some 100 kilometers afar; yet they did not allow Muslims to live in peace at Medina and aggressively attacked them to finish them off the surface of the planet earth well equipped and outnumbered.

They never listened to any reason; they entered into treaties yet always broke them. They openly held that sword will decide between us.

So sword was the choice of Meccans not of Muslims.

Thanks and regards

Founders of religions amassed no wealth

July 21, 2013

The viewers should click on the date that will take one to the live discussion where it occurred.

  • One reason of difference in religions is free will; it creates diversity. Humans are diverse; they have no locks on their minds, hearts and minds.

    • No … the difference in religions is the tailoring of franchises to the local market. Religion is all about wealth and power—the name of the ‘divinity’ is immaterial. No point in trying to establish a ‘Church of the Holy Viracocha’ in Fareham (UK) or Waiouru (NZ) or Mecca (brrrrr~!) … the market there isn’t ready for it.

      But that is digression if our topic is Free Will (helps explain me a bit, though).

      • Muhammad, Jesus, Moses, Socrates,Zoroaster, Krishna, Buddha; none of them amassed any wealth. Do you agree on this?

        • It’s irrelevant. The wealth and power was amassed by ruthless clever men in their name … do you agree?

          • I don’t think you are right; all those great men I mentioned they were founders of great religions; they did not deceive anybody; did not take any offensive on others; had good moral; did not amass any riches; were down to earth humble persons; if others did bad things using their names while they died; how should they be held responsible for the bad deeds of others?

            It is not, I think, a humanistic approach.

            Please review your thoughts.

Understanding of Pascal’s Wager (or betting/gambling) made easy by Wikipedia

April 10, 2013

Blaise Pascal
Blaise Pascal. courtesy Wikipedia

I tried to read the Pensées of Pascal but since my mother tongue is not English; I could not understand it fully from the words of Pascal.

So I looked to Wikipedia- my virtual university. Now I feel that my understanding has been bettered after reading the .Please see “explanation” clicking the link:

Explanation: by Wikipedia

Below I give in the inverted commas the “Explanation: by Wikipedia”
Followed by comments/opinion on each point as “Paarsurrey” what I believe to be the truthful concept irrespective if Pascal believed them or he believed otherwise.

The wager is described in Pensées this way:

1. Explanation of Pensees: “If there is a God, He is infinitely incomprehensible”
Paarsurrey: Yes; merely by reason or by reason alone God is incomprehensible.

2. “since, having neither parts”
Paarsurrey: yes; He has no physical, material or spiritual parts as He is only an attributive being, reflecting himself by his attributes.

3. “nor limits”
Paarsurrey: Yes; he is Absolute in every good attribute, having no blemished attribute; nobody can set limits for Him while He sets limits for others.

4. “He has no affinity to us”
Paarsurrey: If the word affinity is taken as to have no resemblance or likeness; then yes, He is ONE singularity, uniqueness: If we take affinity to mean relationship or kinship or attraction or sympathy; since he has created us humans with a lot of sentiments; so He does take care of us and he helps us when we need Him; we implore him ,we make supplications to Him , we pray to Him with emotions; so he hears our prayers and solves our problems and attracted to us when we need him; saves us and forgives our sins.

5. “We are then incapable of knowing either what He is or if He is….””God is, or He is not.”
Paarsurrey: As just we have seen if we use the right and appropriate resources, we are capable of knowing Him; if we refuse to use the resources and insist on using our preferred and biased resource of “reason only”, then of course we cannot know Him, not for any of His fault; but our own irrational fault.

6. “But to which side shall we incline?”
Paarsurrey: Naturally we must incline to the most beneficial line.

7. “Reason can decide nothing here”
Paarsurrey: Yes; reason without an appropriate tool is blind; cannot see anything.
8. “There is an infinite chaos”

Paarsurrey: I don’t understand as to what he means using the word “chaos”; universe is in a rhythm, it is orderly and symmetrical. If he means be it the obscurity that exits in the human minds on the issue; it will remain or even increase if we try to comprehend God by “reason alone”.

9. “which separated us”
Paarsurrey: He is always near us with his fine attributes.

“A game is being played at the extremity of this infinite distance where heads or tails will turn up”
10. Paarsurrey: God is definitely playing no games with us. He could play games, if he desires, without us. If he means the human choice; or free will choice; yes; he does not want to use force on us .Had he done it; then we would have not been given the choice or free will..

11. “What will you wager?”
Paarsurrey: We don’t have to wager or bet. We either accept him with certainty or we deny Him) “According to reason, you can do neither the one thing nor the other; according to reason, you can defend neither of the propositions.”
Paarsurrey: (We have to use reason prudently, understanding its limitations; and not otherwise.

12. “Do not, then, reprove for error those who have made a choice; for you know nothing about it”
Paarsurrey: It is for this that we are not to judge anybody; and that should be left for Him to judge on the Day of Judgment.

13. “No, but I blame them for having made, not this choice, but a choice; for again both he who chooses heads and he who chooses tails are equally at fault, they are both in the wrong. The true course is not to wager at all.”
Paarsurrey: When we make a choice guided by the Word of Revelation using sincerely all our faculties; we are in fact not betting; but doing the right and the most beneficial thing.

14. “Yes; but you must wager. It is not optional. You are embarked. Which will you choose then? Let us see.”
Paarsurrey: When we follow the most successful and perfect human beings called prophets messengers; we can’t fail.

15. “Since you must choose, let us see which interests you least. You have two things to lose, the true and the good; and two things to stake, your reason and your will,
Paarsurrey: We lose nothing but we gain everything; right reason, right will, right knowledge and above all happiness

16. “your knowledge and your happiness; and your nature has two things to shun, error and misery”
Paarsurrey: that will not touch us.

17. “Your reason is no more shocked in choosing one rather than the other, since you must of necessity choose. This is one point settled. But your happiness? Let us weigh the gain and the loss in wagering that God is. Let us estimate these two chances. If you gain, you gain all”
Paarsurrey: Yes; we gain all; as we choose the right path;

18. “ if you lose, you lose nothing”
Paarsurrey: with the mercy of Him; there is no question of losing.

19. “Wager, then, without hesitation that He is.”
Paarsurrey: Yes; choose the right middle path.

20. “That is very fine. Yes, I must wager; but I may perhaps wager too much. Let us see. Since there is an equal risk of gain and of loss”
Paarsurrey: not so exactly,

21. “if you had only to gain two lives, instead of one, you might still wager.”
Paarsurrey: Yes we gain two lives
22. “But if there were three lives to gain, you would have to play”
Paarsurrey: since you are under the necessity of playing,

23. “and you would be imprudent, when you are forced to play, not to chance your life to gain three at a game where there is an equal risk of loss and gain.”
Paarsurrey: There are only two lives; there will not be any third life

24. “But there is an eternity of life and happiness. And this being so, if there were an infinity of chances, of which one only would be for you, you would still be right in wagering one to win two, and you would act stupidly, being obliged to play, by refusing to stake one life against three at a game in which out of an infinity of chances there is one for you, if there were an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain. But there is here an infinity of an infinitely happy life to gain, a chance of gain against a finite number of chances of loss, and what you stake is finite.[5]”
Paarsurrey: Yes; but without any bet; with rational reasoning and positive decision.

25. “Pascal begins by painting a situation where both the existence and non-existence of God are impossible to prove by human reason. So, supposing that reason cannot determine the truth between the two options, one must “wager” by weighing the possible consequences. Pascal’s assumption is that, when it comes to making the decision, no one can refuse to participate; withholding assent is impossible because we are already “embarked”, effectively living out the choice.”
Paarsurrey: When we throw a ball; either it ascends high or it falls; it won’t remain suspended there.

26. “We only have two things to stake, our “reason” and our “happiness”. Pascal considers that if there is “equal risk of loss and gain” (i.e. a coin toss), then human reason is powerless to address the question of whether God exists or not. That being the case, then human reason can only decide the question according to possible resulting happiness of the decision, weighing the gain and loss in believing that God exists and likewise in believing that God does not exist.
He points out that if a wager was between the equal chance of gaining two lifetimes of happiness and gaining nothing, then a person would be a fool to bet on the latter. The same would go if it was three lifetimes of happiness versus nothing. He then argues that it is simply unconscionable by comparison to bet against an eternal life of happiness for the possibility of gaining nothing. The wise decision is to wager that God exists”
Paarsurrey: Here clarity of concept of God becomes very essential. With concept of God that Jesus and Mary believed; the decision is fine; but with the concept of Paul and the scribes as described in NT; it is not reliable.

27. since “If you gain, you gain all; if you lose, you lose nothing”, meaning one can gain eternal life if God exists, but if not, one will be no worse off in death than if one had not believed. On the other hand, if you bet against God, win or lose, you either gain nothing or lose everything. You are either unavoidably annihilated (in which case, nothing matters one way or the other) or lose the opportunity of eternal happiness. In note 194, speaking about those who live apathetically betting against God, he sums up by remarking, “It is to the glory of religion to have for enemies men so unreasonable…”
Paarsurrey: Yes belief in God brings eternal life or everlasting life indeed.

To believe that Krishna or Krsna was god is as wrong as those who believe that Jesus was god

December 5, 2011

Reference to comment:
by Hank Kimball.

Hank Kimball wrote:

Krsna is the correct or original spelling of it. I am curious as to why you do not know that. It is the spelling in the Vedas; especially Bhagavad Gita; the most common. And Krsna is God; not a messenger of God.

Paarsurrey says:

Thanks for clarifying that Krsna or Krishna are the same.
To believe that Krishna or Krsna was god is as wrong as those who believe that Jesus was god.

Nevertheless, you have your own free will as do the Christians who believe that Jesus was god.

Do you believe that Jesus was god?

Thanks for your input here.