I try to grasp some understanding of The Unified Field Theory, or sometimes called "the theory of everything." Science's quest to attempt a theory that explains everything. from a website;
"Such a theory could potentially unlock all the secrets of nature and make a myriad of wonders possible, including such benefits as time travel and an inexhaustible source of clean energy, among many others. According to Michio Katu, a theoretical physicist at City College, City University of New York, those in pursuit of a unified field theory seek "an equation an inch long that would allow us to read the mind of God."
I don't know, but I wonder if/when they will get there, they will ask why did the universe form at all.

Yes, theistscientist, these people are polite.

Dutch

If God is completely good, then he will not renege on his gift of free will.

According to the bible god kills a lot of innocent people. Is that killing good? Of course, if he really is all good, then he is not powerful enough to do evil, or you need to call the evil he does good; It's circular.

And what would the point be? He has already done this, on a smaller scale; what would an increase in the scale do?

Simple. Doing it on a large scale would (a) dramatically increase the numbers of believers to almost 100%, so at least they're starting from there, and (b) give everyone an unmistakable, clear view of what god wanted them to do. Then they could choose to follow it or not with actually evidence. No one loses free will, so it sounds like a win win to me.

I don't understand; could you please clarify?

According to you:
1) God is all good
2) God wants people to follow his plan
3) People have free will not follow god's plan, whatever that happens to be

My question is do you feel 3 is more important than 2, that god would rather have people have free will then have his plan followed? Of course, if it's god's plan and he knows everything, then surely it's going to happen anyway right? Though if God knows everything then we don't have free will. If he doesn't know everything he's not all powerful, and the bible clearly states he is all powerful and all knowing.

So I suppose the bigger question here is one that's been raised by me before; if god knows everything, how would you decide we still have free will? God already knows our own future before we do, what we will do and why we'll do it. Also, god surely knows his own future as well, by definition, so is he all powerful enough to change his mind?
It's all very confusing and I never got a good answer to it.

With that said, what evidence do you think is being hidden that would allow you to reach a better decision?

The very basis for the decision; Does god exist, if so, which one(s), and what particular plan did they have in mind? It's like voting for a presidental canditate you've never heard policy for before and you're not even sure if they're running for office.

God does not decide where we go after death. That is a result of our choices. Heaven is union with God; Hell is absence of God; purgatory is a state of cleansing.

Surely, god decided on that system, so yes, he is deciding our options in the matter.

We have all the relevant information about who God is, what union with God means, and how to live on earth so as to attain that union. Simply put, God has told us what we need to do to be with him. If God were to show himself to us in all his power, and to prove his existence undeniably, we would no longer have a free choice as to belief in his existence; at that point, it would be about accepting a truth, not making a choice.

This is outlandish. We don't have information as to what god is supposed to be or if he even exists. There are over 3000 christian denominations alone, so it's obviously not that clear what god wants or how to attain union with him. If god proved his existance, we'd suddenly lose all free will? That's absurd logic. It still is about accepting things now, except now the only difference is there's no logically reason to accept them. Why does the choice to follow god have to be totally uniformed, and if it does, why do people even care about supposed miracles?

I do not interpret the Bible literally; nor does Catholicism, which I practice, teach that we should do so.

No True Scotman? The church never seemed to have any issues quoting the bible when it worked for them. Interpretations are even more dangerous, because you can interpret anything you want into the bible (side note, you have to interpret it, since to take it literally means contradiction, mass killing, and generally being insane. For a book of 'divine inspiration' it's awfully logically shaky. Like that part about the world being 6000 years old or so, the rampant incest that must have taken place somehow leaving us with MORE generic diversity). Interpretation is a nice way of saying "reading my own ideas into the book".

Ebon hit on the freewill point, so I'll leave it.

I would like to point out that none of this argument, which you've pointed out, contains any evidence. You have no way of providing any support outside of "this is what I believe". Which is all well and good, but the counterargument to that (ie. "You're mistaken") is not one that can rationally argue.

Heaven is a state of total union with God, in which the inhabitants have surrendered their free will in order to do God's will. Their free will cannot be taken away, since they have chosen voluntarily to give it up.

Randall, this theology makes no sense. You say repeatedly that God won't give convincing proof of his existence, because that would take away our free will and he doesn't want to do that. And yet, if we do choose to believe in him, the supreme reward is... to give up our free will? Why on earth do you believe God is so concerned about preserving people's free will if the end result is going to be that we lose it anyway?

I addressed this point in an essay on Ebon Musings, "Those Old Pearly Gates":

And yet the ultimate reward, the thing we desire and God desires for us, is to lose our free will and become mindless slaves to the Almighty? This does not make sense. It is not compatible with the high value God supposedly places on free will; so high, in fact, that he allows most of humanity to damn itself just so the fraction of people who worship him as he directs can be said to genuinely love him. If it is that important to God that we freely choose him, then how can he be content to be surrounded for all eternity by human automata chanting his praises, endlessly, like broken records? Would this not represent the undoing of everything he sought to achieve by creating free will in the first place? Indeed, if he is content with this, then the creation of this mortal world was entirely unnecessary. Why not just throw out free will entirely and begin with Heaven, and not have to create a Hell at all?

Power is the capacity to perform one's will. If God is all-powerful, then he can do whatever his will is. If God is completely good, then he will not renege on his gift of free will. The requirement to be consistent with oneself is basic logic; it doesn't limit God's power, his ability to accomplish his will, in any way.

""Perhaps he could proform a miracle that would impart his will then? Maybe send lightning down to carve it's will into everyone's front lawn? Make the paint peel off the wall so as to reveal a specific message? Doesn't seem like that should be too hard."

And what would the point be? He has already done this, on a smaller scale; what would an increase in the scale do?

"So then free will is more important than god's will? You don't seem to be using that doubt you think god is jumping through hurdles to leave us. More importantly, how do you know all this?"

I don't understand; could you please clarify? As to how I know - this is what I believe, based on reason, experience, learning, and observation. Can I prove it? No. But that isn't what "know" means. This is what I believe, and what Catholicism teaches, and what I would like to make as clear as possible.

"First off, choices are only free if one has all the knowledge at hand. How can I make a free choice if god hides evidence from me?"

None of us are omniscient; are you saying that none of our choices are free? You don't have all the information about our presidential candidates, but you will still make a free choice regarding who to vote for, or not vote for. A free choice can be made based on the information available, even if that information is not complete; the fact that it may not be the best choice does not mean that it is not a free choice.

With that said, what evidence do you think is being hidden that would allow you to reach a better decision?

"If that is the case, then our following god is much more important of a choice than simple belief. If this is what god bases our eternal afterlife upon, then shouldn't he show himself to us so that we can make a free choice to follow him or not?"

God does not decide where we go after death. That is a result of our choices. Heaven is union with God; Hell is absence of God; purgatory is a state of cleansing. We have all the relevant information about who God is, what union with God means, and how to live on earth so as to attain that union. Simply put, God has told us what we need to do to be with him. If God were to show himself to us in all his power, and to prove his existence undeniably, we would no longer have a free choice as to belief in his existence; at that point, it would be about accepting a truth, not making a choice.

"God certainly didn't give us free will to doubt that we live on Earth, that the sun shines, etc. We don't have total free will according to your definition, and it is god's fault, is it not?"

We can doubt that, if we want. I can say all I like that the sun is not shining; perhaps if I repeat this enough, I can convince myself of it. "Total free will" does not mean "total power to do whatever we will" - it means "total freedom to do whatever we can."

Lpetrich:

"And consider this: Jesus Christ taught that one ought to amputate parts of one's body that make one commit sins. So if free will makes one commit sins, then it is not great at all, and ought to be gotten rid of."

Ebonmuse, in his excellent post "How Not to Convert an Atheist," notes that (this is from memory, so forgive me if it's off): "The worst way to attempt to convert an atheist is to put up your version of his argument and then to argue against that." I will try not to do this in my arguments; I would ask that you do the same for mine.

You are arguing against a fundamentalist interpretation of the Bible. I agree that this is a false interpretation. I do not interpret the Bible literally; nor does Catholicism, which I practice, teach that we should do so. The passage you reference, as it has been explained to me by theologians, priests, and plain old common sense, is metaphorical, meaning that we are supposed to remove whatever tempts us to sin. I agree that we should choose not to sin and to abandon our free will insofar as it causes us to sin, but I doubt that many people would disagree with that.

"Furthermore, if there is a Heaven, will God be hiding from its inhabitants in order to protect their precious free wills?"

Heaven is a state of total union with God, in which the inhabitants have surrendered their free will in order to do God's will. Their free will cannot be taken away, since they have chosen voluntarily to give it up. God will have no reason to hide from its inhabitants, nor they from him.

And consider this: Jesus Christ taught that one ought to amputate parts of one's body that make one commit sins. So if free will makes one commit sins, then it is not great at all, and ought to be gotten rid of.

Furthermore, if there is a Heaven, will God be hiding from its inhabitants in order to protect their precious free wills?

Second, you say:

Pure belief by itself means nothing; the Adversary believes in God too.

If that is the case, then our following god is much more important of a choice than simple belief. If this is what god bases our eternal afterlife upon, then shouldn't he show himself to us so that we can make a free choice to follow him or not?

Having God directly communicate his presence would impinge upon our free will. We would have no choice but to believe; or there would still be room for doubt, and God would not be "completely convincing." To convince completely means overpowering our capacity for doubt, which is part of our free choice.

god certainly didn't give us free will to doubt that we live on Earth, that the sun shines, etc. We don't have total free will according to your definition, and it is god's fault, is it not?

Yep. God can't contradict his own nature. Doesn't mean he isn't omnipotent, just requires that he be be self-consistent, which is true of everything.

Actually, if god does not have the power to contradict his own nature then he is, in fact, not all powerful. Of course, how do we know what god's nature is? We don't know what the spirit is that you think he's made of, of if that spirit even exists or what it's properties are, and now it has a nature too that I can only assume we don't understand as well?

They don't bring anyone any closer to following Him. Pure belief by itself means nothing; the Adversary believes in God too.

Perhaps he could proform a miracle that would impart his will then? Maybe send lightning down to carve it's will into everyone's front lawn? Make the paint peel off the wall so as to reveal a specific message? Doesn't seem like that should be too hard.

To convince completely means overpowering our capacity for doubt, which is part of our free choice.

So then free will is more important than god's will? You don't seem to be using that doubt you think god is jumping through hurdles to leave us. More importantly, how do you know all this?

Yep. God can't contradict his own nature. Doesn't mean he isn't omnipotent, just requires that he be be self-consistent, which is true of everything.

"Seriously though, how does having more knowledge limit our free will? Shouldn't god care more that we follow him than that we simply believe in him?"

Certainly, which is a major reason that miracles are of limited use to God. All they can ensure is that more people believe in his existence. They don't bring anyone any closer to following Him. Pure belief by itself means nothing; the Adversary believes in God too.

Having God directly communicate his presence would impinge upon our free will. We would have no choice but to believe; or there would still be room for doubt, and God would not be "completely convincing." To convince completely means overpowering our capacity for doubt, which is part of our free choice.

Because they aren't direct-to-consciousness communications that leave absolutely no doubt, which is what I assumed lpetrich was asking for and which would be impossible.

Impossible? For an omnipotent god? Ha.

Seriously though, how does having more knowledge limit our free will? Shouldn't god care more that we follow him than that we simply believe in him?