The Rebel Faction

Is it free choice when the only choice you have is to choose good?

Is it free choice when the only choice you have is to choose Jesus?

Says who? Human fancy?

It's hardly fancy, or human logic. In fact, the human mind very clearly cannot comprehend infinity, because it is limited. That is the source of Kas' "disagreement". Language is an interpretive thing because of how we learn and associate words in our mind, but let's be clear; in the common context, God -- as an attempt to explain the universe and creation -- must be infinite, or he fulfills none of the expectations we have of a god and really answers no questions at all.
If you would like to discuss limited divine beings you may do so but know that in doing so you are diverging from most theist philosophy.

Again, says who?

The very definition of God "says so". Again Omnae I think you have a basic misconception of what I am saying. In this context the word "God" does not refer to an existing being, or a being which is assumed to exist. The word "God" refers to a set of pre-defined attributes which represent the remainder of all the varying theological questions our universe poses, which in order to be the ultimate being and creator of the universe any such being would have to fulfill. In other words, the word "God" is an empty vessel, a definition which a being might fill. We are not staring an existing being in the face and deciding what he can or cannot do; we are looking at the parameters of not only our universe, but reality itself, and then drawing an outline of what its creator must be -- or else any proposed being is false.

As far as I know, what one can find out what "God" can or can't do or can or can't create is what is either stated or inferred in the bible.

I don't agree with that, or even really know where you're coming from with it. I find the vision of God as brutal, murderous, conniving, jealous, snide and childish a bit ridiculous, but that's just me, believe what you want and I've heard some pretty fair (though wrong) rationalizations of the Christian God. I am talking about dominant, rationally derived vision of a perfect creator being. Meaning what I said above. We can argue all day on what God is or would be if you want but I'm not really interested. Suffice to say if you are arguing that God is imperfect, you are really arguing that your god is not god.

In any event, I do not see how having an intelligent mind behind say man's creation negates the adaptability and species change of the fruit fly or trees or whatnot. Nor do I see how having the evidence of macro-evolution negate the existence of an intelligent creator.

Before you notice that I wrote a lot in reply to this little statement and decide to not read it, let me say this: I never said that, certainly would never associate the two, and, if you are implying this is what I believe, actually take offense to it.
Now, clearly on the fundamentalist side at least, you're right, because we're not talking about finites and inclusion of existing doctrine, or unified theories that take into account all we know and some of what we choose to believe -- we're talking about extremist doctrine.

But from my perspective, what we're talking about are two different debates, and nowhere did I at all refer to what I said as pertaining to evolution. Personally, I find the evolutionary debate incredibly, incredibly, terminally boring. Mostly because you are talking, again, about extremist doctrine that refuses anything incongruous with its view of the universe -- even when the incongruity is stark, undeniable reality. I chose to rebut what Kas was saying only because it interested me more than shoving evidence in his face and having him shove Biblical pseudo-evidence back.

So I would prefer you didn't associate my view of evolutionary science with a form of exclusionist doctrine inverse to Kas', because although it would be a good point if it were true, it's not what I said. And because I notice you said all this in the midst of a reply to my post, I feel it necessary to point this out to you. Thanks.

Kas, a choice between believing in something, or believing something else AND BEING BURNED ETERNALLY, isn't a choice. It's punishment for not choosing the right answer.

If we are to have free will, there should be no "right" answer.

Indeed, if your god were so loving, why would he give free will, then say if you dont pick me, burn in fires for eternity...

Yes, except unless your blind (in which case you shouldn't be driving anyway), you know there's a brick wall in front of you. It's tangible. God wants us to believe on FAITH that he exists, and if we don't have total faith in him we burn for eternity.

Nice guy. Really.