Free will vs Omniscience

So no response. Never anything from you but empty opinions and hate.

But He didn't give us the power to stop a mass shooting, etc. If He has the power to stop it, why doesn't He use it?

Self-loathing is a common fundamentalist trait.

So He's just tripping over His own feet.

Since you're wrong about practically everything, I'll take that as a compliment.

Yes it would. Jesus said so. We've been through this before. That makes Him evil. That's your favorite copout. But you don't have all of the facts either. You're just making excuses for your pathetic god.

No. Let's not. I'm not interested in conclusions drawn from made-up assumptions. Let's stick to reality. Seriously, don't you see how stupid that sounds? God is such a weakling that He doesn't even rule in Heaven? Come on. Stop wasting my time with that tripe.

My "assumption" is a conclusion based on your ideas about hell. The puny "god" that you describe makes no sense.

It is in the Bible. Do you seriously dispute that? Why don't bank robbers get real jobs? That's not their agenda. If you have apologetics to defend the lies that apologists tell, why don't you explain?

quote:

---

Apologetics (from Greek ἀ, "speaking in defense") is the religious discipline of defending religious doctrines through systematic argumentation and discourse. link

---

quote:

---

Propaganda is information that is not objective and is used primarily to influence an audience and further an agenda, often by presenting facts selectively to encourage a particular synthesis or perception, or using loaded language to produce an emotional rather than a rational response to the information that is presented. link

---

Yes. We've been through this many times. Belief is for when you don't have any objective evidence. If you have objective evidence, there's no place for belief. There's no reframing. Objectivity has always been the default. Objectivity is objective in nature. Atheism may be the conclusion from the objective facts but not necessarily so. Belief can not be the objective conclusion. That's because you're wrong on both counts. The Bible is the only source for your Jesus, yet you reject what it says about Him - i.e. your theology is a figment of your own imagination (and the imaginations of the apologists that you so admire). And even if you did accept your own source, it's often wrong. I don't "claim" that Jesus told "us". I quote what Jesus told you. If you believe that He existed, you are the one who should be doing what He said. It may be hard on your head. Not mine. I'm not concerned with persuading you about anything.

I've done that many times. I should be getting overtime. That's dishonest. Would you let some guy into your house to "read the meter" without ID? You require evidence in every context but one. When you can't explain something, how "obvious" can it really be? What right do you have to reject evidence?

So give us some examples of two lines of evidence that you have decided were in conflict and explain how and why you chose one over the other. Remember that the context here is whether or not God exists.

It isn't just a matter of "imputing". It's a matter of pointing out in detail what the thinking problems are - and you being unable to refute the clear conclusion.

Alfred Hitchcock was an omniscient director. John Ford was not.

Why? Why could He not be less complex? After all, the people who wrote the book were awed by things they didn't understand. What if those things were just done by extraterrestrial technology, a few steps above ours? Even IF those events really happened, why would the writers not exaggerate the powers required? Yes. Every second of human history has been humans trying to do that. It's definitely what we want. We're making the improvements that God can't (not omniscient) or won't (evil) make for us.