|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Free will vs Omniscience | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: When I ask him about some of what we discuss, his response is that the people whom i talk with are not believers. LOL And you do not just laugh when he says that? Sheesh. He just flat admits his position is baseless and you do not challenge it?
Phat writes: Thus, one major difference I see between you and the others is that you have not accepted the "new religion" that you claim Paul and the redactors teach and have spread. Thank God!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes: When I ask him about some of what we discuss, his response is that the people whom i talk with are not believers. You understand that this is tautology? 'You have to be a believer of the things I believe to believe them'. It's the 'no true Scotsman' error. He's just asserting that he knows and others don't. He's a charlatan. You're twisting yourself into knots trying to explain the inexplicable, simply because what you want to say doesn't make objective sense. As an outsider, it sounds like preachy gobbledegook.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
How rude! None of you know my Pastor. I assure you he helps people more than most Christians do. He feeds the hungry, shelters,encourages, etc etc...all the works gospel of Matthew 25. He does it for free, too. The man is not paid much except in his secular job. You attack him based only on the idea that he accepts belief over evidence. I too go with belief because i reject the wisdom of this world. You go with evidence because you basically believe in human wisdom more than belief. I have seen enough subjective evidence myself.
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith Whoever trusts in his own mind is a fool, but he who walks in wisdom will be delivered.~Proverbs 28:26
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Tangle Member Posts: 9510 From: UK Joined: Member Rating: 4.8 |
Phat writes:
Well good for him. No doubt he's a really nice guy. He's still wrong.
None of you know my Pastor. I assure you he helps people more than most Christians do. He feeds the hungry, shelters,encourages, etc etc...all the works gospel of Matthew 25. He does it for free, too. The man is not paid much except in his secular job.You attack him based only on the idea that he accepts belief over evidence. I too go with belief because i reject the wisdom of this world.
We attack him because he apparently made a really stupid remark.
You go with evidence because you basically believe in human wisdom more than belief. I have seen enough subjective evidence myself.
I go with evidence because it works. Belief is useless as a way of establishing what is correct. For example, you know that Muslims and Jews are incorrect despite their beliefs and because of yours.Je suis Charlie. Je suis Ahmed. Je suis Juif. Je suis Parisien. "Life, don't talk to me about life" - Marvin the Paranoid Android "Science adjusts it's views based on what's observed.Faith is the denial of observation so that Belief can be preserved." - Tim Minchin, in his beat poem, Storm.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
This old topic deserves some more attention. The arguments presented are still unclear to me as I grasp the implications of the God I market.
We were discussing Free Will vs Omniscience.
jar writes: My first question today is this: How could GOD conceivably not have foreknowledge? The God created the human and if that God had foreknowledge that that creation would be damned regardless of whether or not the creation had freewill, then that God is vile and evil. What the person does and whether or not it is done through freewill is totally irrelevant. It is only the acts of the God that are relevant. You once commented the following:
jar writes: GOD sent us the message that we all start out saved. Atheist, Agnostic, Christian, Jew, Muslim, Taoist, Satanist, Wiccan, Buddhist, or Anamist, all start even. When you die though you will be judged. And you will be judged individually, uniquely, against yourself. Did you try to do what is right and not do what is wrong? You won't be able to say that "The world is filled with sin" or "We are all Fallen" or "The Sins of Adam" or even "I'm a Christian". None of those will carry any weight. The judgment will be on what you did and what you might have done, and the Judge will have perfect knowledge of both. How is it that God has perfect knowledge of what we did and what we might have done yet not be evil in one case yet not in the other case? Edited by Phat, : spellChance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 421 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Phat writes: My first question today is this: How could GOD conceivably not have foreknowledge? Many of the God characters in the Bible do not have foreknowledge beginning with the God in Genesis 1 and right on through most of the Old Testament.
the Genesis 1 God character writes: 31 And God saw every thing that he had made, and, behold, it was very good. And the evening and the morning were the sixth day. Notice the god is looking at what she created and only then sees that it was good.
the not all that bright Gen 2 god writes: 18 And the Lord God said, It is not good that the man should be alone; I will make him an help meet for him. 19 And out of the ground the Lord God formed every beast of the field, and every fowl of the air; and brought them unto Adam to see what he would call them: and whatsoever Adam called every living creature, that was the name thereof. 20 And Adam gave names to all cattle, and to the fowl of the air, and to every beast of the field; but for Adam there was not found an help meet for him. Note this god makes all the animals and then brings them to Adam to try out. A God that had foreknowledge would have known the while the sheep were okay they just wouldn't really do. Adam and Baaa just sounds wrong. As you should know by now I can keep up bringing Biblical examples for as long as you like.
Phat writes: How is it that God has perfect knowledge of what we did and what we might have done yet not be evil in one case yet not in the other case? Stop and think Phat. The evil God is evil for CREATING the person knowing that the person will be condemned. Judging after the fact based on the evidence is entirely different.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
Phat writes: How could GOD conceivably not have foreknowledge? Any God who is not "all powerful" or "omni-everything" can quite easily not have foreknowledge. For additional evidence of God not being omni-everything, see The Problem of Evil.
How is it that God has perfect knowledge of what we did and what we might have done yet not be evil in one case yet not in the other case? In the first quote, jar seems to reference an evil God who has perfect knowledge of the future.In the second quote, jar seems to only reference a God who has perfect knowledge of the past.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
Omniscience and omnipotence are made-up qualities, like Rumpelstiltskin's ability to spin straw into gold. It has no connection with reality.
How could GOD conceivably not have foreknowledge?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
It seems that we all approach this topic differently.
jar sticks with God as described in the Bible and never attempts to define or market God. Its because he focuses on our charge rather than on His involvement. ringo, you stand by your atheism and simply point out the illogic of any attempt atspeculating as to Gods nature. Its also because you by-and-large agree with jar. I wish you would hypothesize with me now and then. Tangle is more militant about evidence over belief and suggests that belief has outlived its usefulness. I will be forming a line of thought shortly. This morning i'm taking a nap before work. This sort of stuff stresses me out. Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 439 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Phat writes:
I AM hypothesising with you when I point out that your hypothesis makes no sense. In fact, it isn't even a real hypothesis at all since you resolutely refuse to test it.
I wish you would hypothesize with me now and then.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined:
|
Phat writes: This morning i'm taking a nap before work. This sort of stuff stresses me out. Ha ha, rest up And remember, no one here is posting because they're trying to stress you out.We just all (for one reason or another) enjoy posting here. Maybe it's a break from work. Maybe it's a way to keep the mind working. Maybe it's a time-waster, maybe it's interesting or just simply enjoying. But whatever it is, I assure you no one's aim is to "stress Phat" (or anyone else, for that matter.) This is the socially acceptable venue to discuss such topics that are sometimes... less-than-welcomed at the family dinner table or other light-topic, polite social exchange venue (water cooler, lunch room...). Rest up, relax, and reply when you, as well, will enjoy posting here.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
Do you mean this topic? The Problem Of Evil
Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Stile Member Posts: 4295 From: Ontario, Canada Joined: |
That would be a good place to discuss it, if anyone wanted to.But no, I didn't mean to imply a specific topic here. I meant to imply the issue in it's general sense: Wiki - The Problem of Evil
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18343 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
I'm trying mightily to figure you out! For now, I'm continuing our Word was Not Jesus argument over here.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but you seem to be quite the contrarian in terms of popular definitions of Christianity. jar is, of course, the one at EvC responsible for your enlightened thinking. Admittedly, he gets me to think also, but I don't like his interpretation of Christianity. The whole Matthew 25 we are responsible schtick, because people don't even have to believe anything anymore. they simply have to do unto the least. This also fits in with your far left political views. ringo writes: What was He? The Nicene Creed says he was made man. That implies that he stepped out of eternity into time and took on a fleshly body.
How could Jesus become something He always was? ringo writes: So tell me what you think it means.
I'd start by saying that "in the beginning was the word" has nothing to do with Jesus. ringo,to Faith writes: So for you God is an unnecessary fiction in our minds and you feel it worthwhile to challenge religious minds with secular common sense.
I'm still discarding the last vestiges of your so-called "gospel" after being shackled to it for forty years.ringo writes: So in your opinion, what does the author of john mean? And why should I accept your definition when over 75% of the commentators, (yes, they have read the Bible, jar ) explain it differently?
We do NOT know whether or not God exists. It is reasonable to deny his existence, given the total lack of evidence that he does exist. Also, given the way he is described by his devotees, it is reasonable to reject him. ringo writes: Some of us want to replace God with ourselves.
The fictional character "Satan" represents our own free will. What "Satan" wants IS what we want. Every time we're tempted to do something that we "shouldn't", we're wanting to be independent of God.ringo writes: What do you mean by chance? I have issues with that word.... How can you learn anything if you don't get a chance to change your behaviour?Chance as a real force is a myth. It has no basis in reality and no place in scientific inquiry. For science and philosophy to continue to advance in knowledge, chance must be demythologized once and for all. —RC Sproul "A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." —Mark Twain " ~"If that's not sufficient for you go soak your head."~Faith "as long as chance rules, God is an anachronism."~Arthur Koestler
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
My first question today is this: How could GOD conceivably not have foreknowledge? That would be the case if the future was unknowable.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024