Free Will: An Atheist's Question

[Professor_Physika]

Hi all! This is my first real post so I'm gonna get right to it.

I believe it's possible that the following syllogism prohibits the idea of free will and actually supports the idea that it is an illusion.

1) God created the universe.

2) God is timeless.

3) God is omniscient.

4) God had a choice in creating the universe.

5) If God knew beforehand the events of this universe as His timeless omniscience would seem to imply, He bears ultimate responsibility for all actions taken in said universe, acting, in a way, as the "prime mover" of a Rube Goldberg-esque machine. In the same way that a domino has no choice but to fall over when hit by the domino triggered before it, so do people also lack the free will to alter their decisions. Therefore, free will does not actually exist and is instead an illusion.

My question is this: where am I wrong, how did you determine that I'm wrong, do you support a contrary position, and why?

Thanks

 

[No Nicolaitans]

1. Indeed

2. Indeed

3. Indeed

4. Indeed

5. No.

A domino is an inanimate object. Humans aren't. In fact, a human had to set the dominos in action. When I tell my child to do something, and he/she disobeys, the choice was theirs'...not mine. Such is man in relation to God and his creation. Man made the choice; not God. Don't blame God for something he didn't do.

The problem with your syllogism is that it is based on human reasoning and deduction.

Also, as proof that I have free-will, my first choice was not to respond to this, because as my past involvement proves in such discussions, this is a bating tactic; however, after some thought, I decided to give a quick answer. No one but me is typing these letters. No one but me is collecting these few thoughts that I'm relaying. In fact, though I could say more...I make the choice to end my answer now.

[Professor_Physika]

Hi No Nicolaitans!

Quick question for anyone: am I allowed to respond to the answers to my question?

[DaveW]

This section is really for non-members to ask things.

You, being a member of this board, can ask questions in an appropriate section of the main forum.

But yes, you can continue here too.

 

Edited June 20, 2015 by DaveW

[Professor_Physika]

Thank you DaveW, I apologize for the faux pas and this will be duly rectified with subsequent posts.

"A domino is an inanimate object. Humans aren't."

I don't see how this is at all relevant. Could you explain?

"In fact, a human had to set the dominos in action."

Sure, and I argue that God setting man into motion, given the preconditions you agreed with, necessarily sets the dominos into motion. Thus effectively predetermining the scenario from the start and eliminating our free will.

"The problem with your syllogism is that it is based on human reasoning and deduction."

Ah I see. So is the logic incorrect or do you believe the application of the logic is inappropriate and why? What should I use in its stead and why?

"Also, as proof that I have free-will, my first choice was not to respond to this"

Yes, but, as I pointed out, the idea that you think you experience free will is not the same as free will actually existing. It merely demonstrates an illusion at the least. I guess what I'm trying to say is how does one go about proving free will?

"I make the choice to end my answer now."

Sure, you believe that. But, given the preconditions laid out, is it logical to suppose that you actually did chose? I contend no and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Thanks

[DaveW]

You have the fall back position that "the illusion of free will" is real, but not necessarily the "fact" of free will.

This is very convenient to your argument as pretty much ANY proof of free will can then be dismissed.

Therefore, the discussion becomes about as useful as the "tree-forest-sound" conjecture.

There is no way to prove that a tree makes sound if no one is there to hear it, for any way of recording that sound in itself makes the experiment null.

God's Word is full of indications that man has free will.

God does not lie.

Therefore man has free will, not just the illusion of it.

If you reject God's Word as being true and hold to the "illusion" premise that you have proposed, then it is not possible to prove free will.

If you abandon your presupposition that free will does not in fact exist, then you have proof plenty of the free will of man.

[Alimantado]

Hi all! This is my first real post so I'm gonna get right to it.

I believe it's possible that the following syllogism prohibits the idea of free will and actually supports the idea that it is an illusion.

1) God created the universe.

2) God is timeless.

3) God is omniscient.

4) God had a choice in creating the universe.

5) If God knew beforehand the events of this universe as His timeless omniscience would seem to imply, He bears ultimate responsibility for all actions taken in said universe, acting, in a way, as the "prime mover" of a Rube Goldberg-esque machine. In the same way that a domino has no choice but to fall over when hit by the domino triggered before it, so do people also lack the free will to alter their decisions. Therefore, free will does not actually exist and is instead an illusion.

My question is this: where am I wrong, how did you determine that I'm wrong, do you support a contrary position, and why?

Thanks

 

I'm probably not going to end up answering your questions exactly as you've posed them, but happy to give some thoughts.

I admit I can't provide a logical explanation for free will, but then I couldn't explain it when I was an atheist either, and at times I even tended towards determinism, which many atheists hold to, though I could never stomach it for long!

You're bringing up an apparent conflict between the idea of free will and secondary causation, i.e. God being a prime mover--incidentally I think procedural generation in software is also a good illustration of this problem. If something (anything, not necessarily God) sets in motion a universe with laws of cause and effect, where is there room for free agency when every effect is the product of a prior cause? So while this does present a challenge to Christians that hold to free will and human responsibility, I don't think there's anything particularly theistic about the logical problem itself.

I think Christianity actually has a different problem with free will that other 'systems' (e.g. atheism) don't have, which is a conflict between secondary causation and God existing outside of time. How can a creator be a prime mover at all if the creator exists outside of time? Surely from the creator's perspective, they are creating a picture of a sequence of events, like a cartoon strip or the Bayeux Tapestry, rather than instigating an actual series of events. Or in other words, how can a God that's outside of time 'create' a beginning without simultanously creating an end?

Personally, the way I've tended to deal with philosophical problems about free will is to, er, not deal with them. Christianity does not present a strange universe: it proposes secondary causation and free will, which is pretty much equivalent to what I believed when I was an atheist (and experience everyday, of course), and which comes with some of the same age-old philosophical problems. I'm happy to chalk it up to a mystery, or assume that God makes it so in a way that's not explainable.

By the way, I think both Calvinism and Open Theism are Christian attempts to deal with the problem of free will.

Edited June 20, 2015 by Alimantado
Left an early draft at the bottom!

[No Nicolaitans]

"A domino is an inanimate object. Humans aren't."

I don't see how this is at all relevant. Could you explain?

...given the preconditions you agreed with...

You compared free-will (or lack thereof) to a domino's causal agent. In comparing the two, you asserted that humankind's free-will is the same as that of a domino's. So, it's relevant, because you were the one who made the assertation. I was merely responding to your example.

I didn't agree with all of your preconditions. The first 4 points that I did agree with have no bearing on mankind's free-will or my answers.

 

   "The problem with your syllogism is that it is based on human reasoning and deduction."

Ah I see. So is the logic incorrect or do you believe the application of the logic is inappropriate and why? What should I use in its stead and why?

Since you say that you're an atheist, aren't these pointless questions? In fact, isn't the entire discussion that you started pointless? While I do appreciate the fact that you capitalized the "G" in God in your OP, you (as an atheist) assert that there is no God; however, at the same time, you are also asserting that God is the causal agent of everything. So, either you aren't truly an atheist, or your questions are moot at best or an attempt to cause confusion at worst.

What exactly is your purpose in this discussion about free-will? In the above quote from you, you mentioned "logic" twice. Would I be fair in saying that you highly esteem "logic"? Would it be fair to say that you consider "logic" to be your driving force in understanding things from your world-view? Human logic is just that...human. It is the result of a fallen mind. I'm not saying that all human logic is wrong, but all human logic is derived from a fallen mind; therefore, it is subject to fallibility and error. Therefore, any human logic that determines a supposed truth about anything spiritually related is faulty. Hence, that is one (if not the main) reason as to why there are so many various cults, "isms", and false religions. They are born from fallen men with fallen minds. That's also why an atheist can't reconcile God with their logic.

   "Also, as proof that I have free-will, my first choice was not to respond to this"

Yes, but, as I pointed out, the idea that you think you experience free will is not the same as free will actually existing. It merely demonstrates an illusion at the least. I guess what I'm trying to say is how does one go about proving free will?

Here, I will give you the chance to prove whether free-will exists or not...

Read the gospel of John. As you read it, when you get to the end of each chapter, please write at least a 200-word paper describing what you read (and your understanding of it) and then post your results for each chapter in this thread. 

You now have a choice. You will either do it or not, but the choice is up to you. Now, after your choice is made, what is the reason (or reasons) for why you made that choice?

   "I make the choice to end my answer now."

Sure, you believe that. But, given the preconditions laid out, is it logical to suppose that you actually did chose? I contend no and I haven't seen any evidence to suggest otherwise.

Thanks

"Logical"? We've already covered that.

"Preconditions"? You are asserting that those "preconditions" are unmovable. Those are your preconditions; not mine. I can't answer honestly based on faulty preconditions, and isn't it "logical" that you would want the honest answers that I've given rather than misconstrued and constructed answers based on a faulty premise?

Alimantado touched on something that I actually wanted to address in my first post...but I freely chose not to. 

However, in the spirit of jest, I will freely choose to mention it now...with all this "God is the causal agent" talk, are you sure that you're not a closet-Calvinist instead of an atheist?   

I read your "introduction" post. I don't know what may have caused you to come to the conclusion that there are no gods (little "g" was also correct). In that, you are correct; there are no gods. There is only one God. However, with the assertion that God is the causal agent in each and every situation, then that would mean that God caused you not to believe in him...right? But since you don't believe in God, you don't believe that either...right? Where's the logic in that? God made me not believe in him, but I don't believe in him, so I don't believe that God made me not believe in him.

This supposed problem is quickly resolved when one finds the purpose for God's creation of man as given in God's word...and yes, the answer is in there. When you find the answer as to why man was created, it will resolve this entire conflict of free-will vs. causation. In fact, free-will is the only option that makes sense given the mess that this world is in. 

Edited June 20, 2015 by No Nicolaitans

[John81]

If a person claims to be an atheist it makes me wonder why they wonder so much about something (Someone) they claim to believe doesn't exist (God).

Atheists don't believe Odin or Zeus exist yet I don't see them spending time trying to disprove the Eddas or what we now call Greek mythology.

Why aren't atheists denouncing and trying to disprove the boogie man, tooth fairy or various mystical or spiritual beings/creatures and gods/goddesses many actually believe in?

It's also curious that atheists are quick to question and/or attack the God of the Bible but rarely do the same towards the gods of various religions.

Could this be a matter related to what God points out in the book of Romans that all men have an understanding that God exists but some refuse to accept that innate knowledge?

[Professor_Physika]

Hi DaveW!

"You have the fall back position"

It's not so much a fallback position as it is an attempt to cover all bases. I grant that the illusion would seem to be present although I don't see how, given the four preconditions, the logical conclusion wouldn't be that it doesn't actually exist. In other words, I don't see why it's more logical to claim "free will is an illusion" as the fallback position over "free will exists".

"This is very convenient to your argument as pretty much ANY proof of free will can then be dismissed."

And herein lies the problem. It appears as though there is no objective way to verify anything or anybody has free will. In the same way we can't prove that we actually exist (solipsism), a demonstrable proof or line of reasoning pertaining to free will has yet to be forthcoming.

"Therefore, the discussion becomes about as useful as the "tree-forest-sound" conjecture."

I'd say it's a fair bit more useful than that given certain groups' beliefs. For example, under this conclusion, your god is responsible for creating people with the express purpose of sending them to eternal torture (assuming you believe in that form of the afterlife). This would, of course, render this deity in a seriously negative light which would, at best, be inconsistent with a just being and, at worst, suggest it doesn't actually exist. (Of course you could always say God works in mysterious ways, but therein lies a problem with the falsifiability of supernatural agents, but that's a topic for another time).

"God's Word is full of indications that man has free will."

But, then, why does the syllogism I've laid out seem to indicate no such thing exists?

"God does not lie."

This, again, is another topic for another day, but how do finite beings such as we determine whether or not God is lying? Or, alternatively, how do finite beings determine God is the good one and Satan is the evil one? Herein lies yet another problem in this issue: it forces us to reconsider our preconceptions (which is good! We should question everything )

"If you reject God's Word as being true and hold to the "illusion" premise that you have proposed, then it is not possible to prove free will."

But, from an outsider's perspective, you have to see this as a cop-out. It's like saying, "If you reject Jerry's opinion down the street, then you're going to find Jerry wrong." Well of course you'll find Jerry wrong! It's a tautology. If we just accepted God's supposed Word from the outset, we'd then be in position of a confirmation bias because everything that can be evidence against a position is now able to be swept under the rug as unexplainable.
But this gets at the crux of the position: how is my syllogism incorrect based on the logic I've laid out? Would you at least admit it appears correct exclusively given the premises relayed?

"If you abandon your presupposition that free will does not in fact exist, then you have proof plenty of the free will of man."

But it's not a presupposition. It was a conclusion I made based on core tenants of the Christian doctrine. What I have found are inconsistencies as Christian doctrine usually states that free will exists as well. However, I do not see how this is possible given what I have laid out.
Thanks

Hi Alimantado!

I appreciate your thoughts and I certainly agree that it can be quite the challenging subject!
Thanks

Hi No Nicolaitans!

"You compared free-will (or lack thereof) to a domino's causal agent. In comparing the two, you asserted that humankind's free-will is the same as that of a domino's. So, it's relevant, because you were the one who made the assertation. I was merely responding to your example."

Yes, but your response, from what I gathered, was that a domino is inanimate and people aren't. So I'm asking how that's relevant to the discussion and how it changes the meaning of what I'm saying.

"I didn't agree with all of your preconditions."

Ah perhaps I should clarify: the first four points are the preconditions. The last point is the conclusion based off of those four points. So, technically, yes, you did agree with my preconditions.

"Since you say that you're an atheist, aren't these pointless questions? In fact, isn't the entire discussion that you started pointless?"

Not at all! I'm at least able to place myself within a hypothetical worldview and adopt its tenants to form conclusions which is what I've done above. Obviously I don't believe God created the universe or that there was even a God to do the creating (if "creating" is even the accurate terminology). I pose the question for a couple of reasons: I wish for people to think and, of course, doubt. I believe doubt isn't something to be ashamed of and is the sign of a good skeptic which I hope you all agree you are. The second purpose is to actually get an answer. I've posed the question before and I've never gotten an answer that satisfies me, but I also recognize that this doesn't mean no one can have a satisfactory answer. So I thought what better place to pose the question? And last, I wish to understand what people believe and why! The "why" is particularly important to me as, oftentimes, what you believe is less essential then why you believe it.
Oh, and, I, as an atheist, do not assert God doesn't exist. I simply lack a belief in said deity. I am what is called, in philosophical terms, an agnostic atheist.

"That's also why an atheist can't reconcile God with their logic."

Sure, people can be illogical, but logic is built on absolutes and axioms that are true by definition. Because they are definitional truths, they cannot be wrong. But even if that was incorrect, you still haven't demonstrated where I am wrong in my syllogism. Or does your last statement above concede that it's an irreconcilable problem in my worldview and the only way I can solve the issue is accept that your god exists?

"Here, I will give you the chance to prove whether free-will exists or not..."

But, as stated, this doesn't actually prove anything! It merely illustrates that free will is, at the least, an illusion. How do we objectively go about determining free will actually exists?

""Preconditions"? You are asserting that those "preconditions" are unmovable. Those are your preconditions; not mine. I can't answer honestly based on faulty preconditions, and isn't it "logical" that you would want the honest answers that I've given rather than misconstrued and constructed answers based on a faulty premise?"

These are the premises you and I both agreed upon! In your first post, you agreed with the four preconditions, but took issue with the conclusion which is what the discussion is about. From the premise "God is timeless", how could these premises be "movable"? What does "movable" even mean in this case? Then you state that my premises are faulty, but in what way? As I've said, you seem to already agree with my preconditions (unless you've changed your mind), so why are you arguing with them if it's the conclusion you take issue with?

"with all this "God is the causal agent" talk, are you sure that you're not a closet-Calvinist instead of an atheist?"

Yes. As I was saying, I'm speaking hypotheticals based on what I understand of Christian theology as someone who lived it and someone who is now an outsider.

"In that, you are correct; there are no gods. There is only one God."

You misinterpret me. You do believe God is a god, correct? As in the god of Christianity fits into the definition of the word "god". In that sense, I lack belief in this god too.

"However, with the assertion that God is the causal agent in each and every situation, then that would mean that God caused you not to believe in him...right? But since you don't believe in God, you don't believe that either...right? Where's the logic in that? God made me not believe in him, but I don't believe in him, so I don't believe that God made me not believe in him."

As stated, I'm speaking hypotheticals. I, of course, don't believe in any of this. This is purely for discussion and the three reasons I stated above. I do accept, however, that if there is a god as described from my syllogism, I am in fact prohibited from believing in it because of the preconditions the god laid out from the beginning. Unless of course I was only destined to be an atheist for a small portion of my life, but, again, hypotheticals
Thanks

Hi John81!

"If a person claims to be an atheist it makes me wonder why they wonder so much about something (Someone) they claim to believe doesn't exist (God)."

That's a great question! You see, I live in a very Christian-centric household (they're Baptists like most of you here) and theology is a common topic of discussion. Despite being an outsider, I find it tantalizing to discuss. For example, I'm a lifelong Star Wars fan. I bring this up because I have many books, all the movies, even toys from my childhood pertaining to this movie franchise. I love getting into discussions about stuff that happens in the canon of Star Wars, which is super geeky, I know, but I don't actually have to believe that Han Solo and Darth Vader exist to really be interested and get into these discussions. And not only that, but people actually DO believe the topics I'm talking about here which makes it doubly interesting for me to get involved in.

"Atheists don't believe Odin or Zeus exist yet I don't see them spending time trying to disprove the Eddas or what we now call Greek mythology."

Of course not, no one believes in these gods of old nowadays and only mythologists are discussing the theology of these old beliefs. That being said, believe me, these topics interest in the same way, but of course I'm not on onlinebaptist.com discussing Zeus!

"Why aren't atheists denouncing and trying to disprove the boogie man, tooth fairy or various mystical or spiritual beings/creatures and gods/goddesses many actually believe in?"

Well in relation to the first things (not the gods/goddesses part), those aren't issues contingent to atheism. But since you mention it, I am an advocate for skepticism and reason in everyday life so I also lack a belief in these paranormal creatures as well. In fact, I'd even go as far to say skepticism plays a bigger role in my life than atheism because I'd almost have to consider my atheism a subset of my skepticism. On the point about assorted gods, some atheists do argue against the supposed evidence for their existence.

"It's also curious that atheists are quick to question and/or attack the God of the Bible but rarely do the same towards the gods of various religions."

I can only speak for myself here, but I question all religious texts. As mentioned, of course I'm questioning the Bible here because this is a Christian website and the Bible is the book I'm most familiar with having grown up a Southern Baptist. I apologize if my line of inquiry is interpreted as attacking.

"Could this be a matter related to what God points out in the book of Romans that all men have an understanding that God exists but some refuse to accept that innate knowledge?"

Of course I would deny that, but I don't see that it's falsifiable. All I can point to is my skepticism of all religions and their respective (and sometimes overlapping) gods.
Thanks for the questions and I hope I cleared up some confusion

[Miss Daisy]

I think free will has been debated and discussed ad nauseum on this board. I think we're being baited into it again when the person just needs to do a little searching on this board and will find thousands of posts already covering the subject. They are trying to make their argument sound more scientific and theoretical and observed and questioned from a view or stand never stated before, which is absurd. It may be worded or questioned differently, but they still want God to be "proved" to them in a laboratory. Politeness is appreciated in their posts but still a thin veil. 

[No Nicolaitans]

Well, I just made a huge post in answer to his last comments directed towards me, but when I hit "Submit Reply"...it disappeared!

I hate that I lost it, and I don't have the time to write everything again. So, I'll end with this...

The Professor has admitted that he wants to cause others to doubt, and he wants to know "why" people believe what they believe. As for me, I'll give him no more ammunition in knowing why I believe what I do, because I fear it will only increase his knowledge in being able to cause doubt in others.

Not that I know that much anyway. 

[Professor_Physika]

Hi Miss Daisy!

"I think free will has been debated and discussed ad nauseum on this board. I think we're being baited into it again when the person just needs to do a little searching on this board and will find thousands of posts already covering the subject."

No no, not at all! I'm not trying to bait anyone, these are questions I'm actually curious about that I would like to see answered, there's no hidden agenda present as "baiting" would seem to imply. Again, I apologize if it appears that way. I was invited into this forum by user TheSword so I figured it was a forum open to these kind of discussions. I have read some of the posts that claim to answer my question on other discussion topics, but I have yet to be satisfied by the answers provided to me which is why I came here to ask my specific questions in a far more direct manner. So I extend that invitation to anyone wishing to answer.

"They are trying to make their argument sound more scientific and theoretical and observed and questioned from a view or stand never stated before, which is absurd."

I apologize, but I fail to see your meaning here. Are you perhaps objecting to the terminology I'm employing? Could you explain yourself better please?

"It may be worded or questioned differently, but they still want God to be "proved" to them in a laboratory."

Not at all! If by "laboratory", you mean I want God to be "proven" scientifically, I object. I recognize that science has severe limitations in testing the supernatural due to it's methodological naturalism. Because of this, I understand that most peoples' definition of whatever god they believe in is not able to be "proven" scientifically (although certain individual claims can be tested to an extent and a reasonable conclusion can be drawn therefrom, but even this has obvious limitations).

"Politeness is appreciated in their posts but still a thin veil."

I'm sorry, but a thin veil of what exactly? What is that you figure my intent is? I apologize if I have come off as malevolent, but I disagree in the assessment that my questions have ill intent. Curiosity is the main driver of my line of inquiry.
Thanks :)

Hi again No Nicolaitans!

"Well, I just made a huge post in answer to his last comments directed towards me, but when I hit "Submit Reply"...it disappeared!"

I'm very sorry indeed, I was looking forward to your "rebuttal"!

"The Professor has admitted that he wants to cause others to doubt, and he wants to know "why" people believe what they believe."

Yes, this is my intent, although I don't understand why "why" is in quotes. This seems to me to be a subtle implication that you're "not buying it", "it" being my motive. This seems to be a common theme as of right now. I hope my presence will eventually be trusted on this forum as time progresses as I don't seek to cause strife, only discussion. As stated, I believe doubt is good, I even doubt myself all the time! The more we doubt and apply appropriate skepticism to our activities, the less room for error we have, wouldn't you agree? :)

"As for me, I'll give him no more ammunition in knowing why I believe what I do, because I fear it will only increase his knowledge in being able to cause doubt in others."

While I object to the term "ammunition", I respect your opinion in deciding to bow out. Although, playing devil's advocate here (I guess some would believe that literally here XD), there is the distinct and, I'd like to think (if I'm exercising due skepticism and objectivity), very real possibility that your answers could convince me out of my position, possibly towards a new belief in your god. But enough of that, I'm just offering alternative viewpoints
Thanks! :)

[No Nicolaitans]

 

Hi again No Nicolaitans!

I'm very sorry indeed, I was looking forward to your "rebuttal"!

It wasn't a rebuttal; I don't debate.

While the thought of you accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior is my hope, and the possiblity exists that you may be sincere in just wanting to discuss things without purposeful ill-intent...the fact remains that you want to cause people to doubt. To cause doubt in one of God's children is an offense of immense proportions...

 

You may see it as harmless, and perhaps you actually do; however, I (in good conscience) will no longer engage in any discussion that may be used to cause others to doubt.

Perhaps I was alone in my perception, but your opening post came across as something that you believed. However, you then said that you didn't believe any of it...it was all just hypothetical. So, I hope that you can understand that I now see a "boy who cried wolf" delimma. I love helping people, but I'm used to helping people who actually want help. I don't want to spend the time (such a discussion would take) in just stimulating someone's thinking. That may be the way to reach you, but I'm not the person to do it under the circumstances.

Now, with that said...I hope none of this came across as offensive, and I hope you have a nice day.

[Professor_Physika]

Hi again No Nicolaitans :)

"It wasn't a rebuttal; I don't debate."

Ah yes, I understand, this is why I put "rebuttal" in quotes. I didn't intend it to be taken as a literal rebuttal (and now I know you didn't either), it was just the first convenient word I thought of.

"While the thought of you accepting the Lord Jesus Christ as your Savior is my hope, and the possiblity exists that you may be sincere in just wanting to discuss things without purposeful ill-intent...the fact remains that you want to cause people to doubt. To cause doubt in one of God's children is an offense of immense proportions..."

Thank you for at least considering that my inquiry is not of ill intent :) I respect your right to hold the opinion that doubt is sinful (I don't respect the opinion itself, I think it's rather backward with all due respect). As stated, if you wish to differ this subject to others who hold a different view pertaining to doubt, I completely understand.

"You may see it as harmless, and perhaps you actually do;"

Meh, maybe not harmless per say, as there would be an obvious threat if such a god did exist and the punishment for doubting that god was severe (which I would consider immoral, but you obviously disagree), but I do consider it healthy. I believe it's healthy to be skeptical; after all, while you may not be in this subject, I'd be willing to bet you are in most topics in everyday life (I will say, however, by stating that you believe doubting is sinful, this does give me a new perspective on Christian doctrine even if it's not the subject I was hoping to gain insight in).

"Perhaps I was alone in my perception, but your opening post came across as something that you believed."

I apologize for this misunderstanding. I thought it clear from the title (Free Will: An Atheist's Question), that people would infer that it's my (the atheist's) question. Being an atheist, I obviously wouldn't hold practical beliefs about the Christian god; merely hypothetical beliefs.

"I love helping people, but I'm used to helping people who actually want help."

I think my inquisition into gaining a deeper (and, arguably, proper) understanding into Christian doctrine and what people believe in general (and why of course) could easily be interpreted as me wanting help. But you're free to interpret otherwise :)

"I don't want to spend the time (such a discussion would take) in just stimulating someone's thinking. That may be the way to reach you, but I'm not the person to do it under the circumstances."

I would say it would be one way to "reach" me, but, again, I understand that you feel you aren't the best qualified for the task.

"Now, with that said...I hope none of this came across as offensive, and I hope you have a nice day."

No offense at all. You too have a nice day