You have free will but are only free to follow the rules.

[Greatest I am]

You have free will but are only free to follow the rules.

Is that really freedom?

The only freedom we have is to follow the rules or break them.
No other freedom comes to mind.
This would include either secular rules or religious rules.
Rules of physics and nature are understood.
This free will that you have is freedom that you take.
It is not given to you.
Freedom is not something that can be given unless it is first taken from you.

If we are in God’s image and He in ours, then is He hampered by this same condition of only being able to follow the rules or break them?

He seems to be.

Regards
DL

[mohammed_beiruti]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

You have free will but are only free to follow the rules.

Is that really freedom?

The only freedom we have is to follow the rules or break them.
No other freedom comes to mind.
This would include either secular rules or religious rules.
Rules of physics and nature are understood.
This free will that you have is freedom that you take.
It is not given to you.
Freedom is not something that can be given unless it is first taken from you.

If we are in God’s image and He in ours, then is He hampered by this same condition of only being able to follow the rules or break them?

He seems to be.

Regards
DL

i think it is "balance" not rules.

intially there must be a balance.

you are free to break "balance" positively or negatively.

rules came to make that balance(at least) in equilibrium.

have you met an evil child(baby)?

have you met a rightous child(baby)?

I think there is not an evil nor rightous child (baby).

the balance is zero.

you have to start from zero

Qura'an Ch 55: 7-9
And the heavens, He raised them and set the balance,
that ye should not be outrageous in the balance;
But weigh ye aright, and stint not the balance

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by mohammed_beiruti

i think it is "balance" not rules.

intially there must be a balance.

you are free to break "balance" positively or negatively.

rules came to make that balance(at least) in equilibrium.

have you met an evil child(baby)?

have you met a rightous child(baby)?

I think there is not an evil nor rightous child (baby).

the balance is zero.

you have to start from zero

Qura'an Ch 55: 7-9
And the heavens, He raised them and set the balance,
that ye should not be outrageous in the balance;
But weigh ye aright, and stint not the balance

Rather hard to follow a balance.

Rules are followed, not balances

Other than hear say or book say, what leads you to think that God even exists or set any balance?
No dogma please.

Regards
DL

[angellous_evangellous]

Well then, we have to follow the laws of physics, so does that exclude freewill?

[sojourner]

I think we should all follow A_E and be done with it!

[no-body]

Yes, this is the problem I have with staunch "obey me or go to Hell" versions of religion floating around. How can you call God "loving" when he created the rules he needed to break to save you in the first place? I suppose for the most part people would rather just boil down everything into "us vs them" and assure themselves their on the winning team. Sounds more like a sick psychological experiment in obedience to me, but to each their own.

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

If we are in God’s image and He in ours, then is He hampered by this same condition of only being able to follow the rules or break them?

Being made in God's image could mean anything.

[MSizer]

I still struggle with this question. It seems perfectly sensible that determinism and behaviourism are real, yet reductionism seems so unrealistic. I don't know the answer to your question. I wish I did. I'm haunted by David Hume's observation about how it is impossible to have free will, since if we did, we'd necessarily have to spontaneously generate thoughts completely unrelated (without cause) to previous events. Therefore he concluded that free will is impossible, as no order could exist if free will existed. Of course I also wonder whether knowing would change anything anyway, as our perceptions would continue to exist anyway, so the world would probably still feel the same and I expect life would just go on anyway.

[Willamena]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Well then, we have to follow the laws of physics, so does that exclude freewill?

Only if you don't choose to follow the laws of physics!

[mohammed_beiruti]

Originally Posted by Greatest I am

Rather hard to follow a balance.

Rules are followed, not balances

Other than hear say or book say, what leads you to think that God even exists or set any balance?
No dogma please.

Regards
DL

ok, no dogma

if you hear about "law of conservation of energy"

The law of conservation of energy is an empirical law of physics. It states that: the total amount of energy in an isolated system remains constant over time. A consequence of this law is that energy cannot be created nor destroyed. The only thing that can happen to energy in a closed system is that it can change form, for instance chemical energy can become thermal energy.

And according to the Big Bang model, the Universe expanded from an extremely dense and hot state and continues to expand today. A common analogy explains that space itself is expanding, carrying galaxies with it, like raisins in a rising loaf of bread.


now returning to the lae of conservation of energy that "energy cannot be created"

who do you think gave energy to our universe and exploded it?

a supreme force came from God(s)? may be?




this scheme illustrating the expansion of a portion of a flat Universe.

I think the universe will return to it's initial sizeagain , i mean it will shrink why?

because the universe will behave like a Neutron star?

"For a sufficiently massive star, an iron core is formed and still the gravitational collapse has enough energy to heat it up to a high enough temperature to either fuse or fission iron. Either in the aftermath of a supernova or in just a collapsing massive star, the energy gets high enough to break down the iron into alpha particles and other smaller units, and still the pressure continues to build. When it reaches the threshold of energy necessary to force the combining of electrons and protons to form neutrons, the electron degeneracy limit has been passed and the collapse continues until it is stopped by neutron degeneracy. At this point it appears that the collapse will stop for stars with mass less than two or three solar masses, and the resulting collection of neutrons is called a neutron star. The periodic emitters called pulsars are thought to be neutron stars."


look at the balance here

Qura'an ch.21

30. Do not the Unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were joined together (as one unit of creation), before we clove them asunder? We made from water every living thing. Will they not then believe?

then

104. The Day that We roll up the heavens like a scroll rolled up for books (completed),--even as We produced the first creation, so shall We produce a new one: a promise We have undertaken: truly shall We fulfil it.

[Greatest I am]

Originally Posted by angellous_evangellous

Well then, we have to follow the laws of physics, so does that exclude freewill?

If you want to go about wishing to fly and thinking you should, then enjoy.
Hard on the arms but it is good exercise for you.

Regards
DL