Free will vs Omniscience

You have stated before that you believe GOD to be "complete" rather than simply "good". I might point out that God and His fallen angel together are in a sense "complete" but that God is eternally good.

Yet you provide neither evidence OR any reasoned argument to support your assertion or to respond to the points I raised in the post to which you are replying.

What? Devils and plots in heaven and god being outfoxed and sending a god that was only a man to make up for something a snake did thousands of years earlier?Phat, this is not just un-fucking-believable, it's really embarrassing . You're never going to stop making stuff up not only about what you want to believe but also what everyone else does too are you?I don't choose anything about origins, I haven't a clue and never will. I just point out errors you people make when you attempt to recruit bits of science you don't understand for your neurotic god.

I understand that in the Scripture, God does indicate that He knows the outcome of someone's faith. It is true. Ultimately, God is omniscient.God is able to know one's faith outcome, does not mean GOD knows everyone's faith outcome. In majority of cases, I believe God just let the person make this critical choice on himself. If you do know God says that He knows everyone's future on faith, please let me know the verses.

God has a plan to deal with sin right from the beginning. God may not know when and through whom will sin appear. But He knows it will appear. that is why Jesus is there with God. God gives angels and humans free will because He wants to fix the problem of sin from the very very beginning. Without sin, what is wrong to have a full free will in God's Kingdom? Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

The perhaps your god lacks the knowledge about each individual to determine whether or not they deserve to go to heaven upon their deaths?Perhaps your god lacks the power to send people to heaven or hell?

I would argue several beliefs:

Hell was never created as a repository for humans. Hell was allowed to exist as a product of the free will of the fallen Archangel Lucifer. Hell is a place where Gods Spirit is absent. The cosmic battle between good and evil started when the fallen Arch Angel became jealous of humans. Critics will say that these religious beliefs are likely false mainly due to the fact that they anthropomorphize God (through Jesus Christ) as human and that this proves that humans made it all up. On the other hand, the very idea that a Creator of all seen and unseen even bothers with such a seemingly insignificant life form as humans can be very humbling, awe inspiring, and powerful for he who has an ear to hear.

​

God never sends anyone to Hell except Lucifer who had to go there due to rebellion against the Holy Spirit. God is exclusive in this respect. Humans only end up in Hell (or apart from God eternally) through a lifetime of choices. We ultimately choose Hell by default due to our insistence on being left alone to grow up our own chosen way and in denial of the need for the Holy Spirit and Communion. If ringo means to suggest that he could live with a God who let him do his own thing eternally, he has the spirit of the antichrist whether he believes it or not. I think that ringo knows better, however. He just hates submitting to authority.

---

"A lie can travel half way around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes." ~Mark Twain "
***
We must realize that the Reformation world view leads in the direction of government freedom. But the humanist world view with inevitable certainty leads in the direction of statism. This is so because humanists, having no god, must put something at the center, and it is inevitably society, government, or the state.- Francis A. Schaeffer

​

The whole war between the atheist and the theist comes down to this: the atheist believes a 'what' created the universe; the theist believes a 'who' created the universe.
- Criss Jami, Killosophy

What you said illustrates you lack the basic understanding to Christianity.God set up Heaven and Hell. People use free will to choose which one to go. God does not have to send any human to anywhere.

But still the idea that the deity is merely very powerful rather than all-powerful is an interesting distinction. It fits in with the polytheistic view of a god as merely a very powerful being.

But still the idea that the deity is merely very powerful rather than all-powerful is an interesting distinction. It fits in with the polytheistic view of a god as merely a very powerful being.

Whatever happened to "God is everywhere"?

That's not what I said. That's what you keep saying and I keep telling you that's not what I said.It has nothing to do with "autonomy from the Holy Spirit". There is no "Holy Spirit" so autonomy from it is irrelevant. You might as well be talking about autonomy from the Easter Bunny.The "Satan" character plays several roles in the Bible but mostly he represents an alternative viewpoint. Everything isn't black and white. God's viewpoint isn't always "right" - note how He changes His mind from time to time. Reality is more subtle than the simple-minded "spiritual warfare" that you try to push. Why did I have to wade through all of that rubbish when the answer is obvious: Yes.Yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes, yes.If God is omnipotent and/or omniscient, yes, He is responsible for everything.That has been answered for you time and time again in this thread. Just look at the hoops you have to jump through just to express your idiotic theology.

Why do you need to invoke another "sufficiently powerful intellect" for this example?Isn't this the exact same thing as watching a recording of something that happened yesterday?If, yesterday, you decided out of your own free will to choose pink lemonade over white lemonade... and I record it.
And I view that recording a few times.
And I play it a few times.
And every time I play it - I can (accurately) predict what you will choose in the recording...Does this mean that your initial decision was made without having free will?That seems to be what you're implying.
But I don't see any reason to accept it.Why does recording the occurrence of something, and looking back on that recording imply that free will is removed from the decision that was recorded?

You mentioned killing a baby isn't like taking out the trash - implying that one is easy and one is not - and further implying that a "not-easy one" is also impossible.I bring up lemonade vs trash to show that even when a choice is difficult (taking out the trash is more difficult than drinking a cool glass of lemonade...) - it's still possible to do.Killing a baby is not impossible because it's "morally difficult" to choose.
It's simply that - morally difficult to choose.
Such difficult adds in a consequence of extreme bad feelings and regret.
Some will be capable of handling these, some will not.
For some, like psychopaths, it's very easy to "handle these" because they don't have to handle them - they do not feel the bad feelings or regret.But, again, this doesn't make it impossible for a non-psychopath to choose the morally difficult decision - and then deal with the very bad feelings and regret. That's the same thing - in the context of how we've been discussing "feelings" here, anyway. Ha ha - you may as well say that the Bible being the most popular best selling book proves that God exists.If you really believe this - feel free to back it up. If you can actually do so, there's a Nobel Prize in it for you.
Scientists have been studying free will for a very, very long time.
They are recently making some progress.
But such a conclusion is still (currently) out of our reach as of today.Empathy can affect fee will in the same way that age can affect athletic performance.If you have infinite age - you may very well have 0 athletic performance, as you'll be so old that you cannot move without breaking your bones.
If you have infinite empathy - you may very well have 0 free will, as you will not be able to "deal with" the feelings.But, we don't have infinite age. We have finite age. And there are ways to deal with aging to allow for greater/longer athletic performance.
Some are capable of great athletic performance while also being very old.
Some are capable of greater athletic performance in their later years than they were in their younger years - depending on when they do their training.We also don't have infinite empathy. We have finite empathy. Different for different people. And there are ways to deal with the feelings of empathy that allow for greater/longer decision making.
Some are capable of great decision making while also having lots of empathy.To try and boil down empathy to a binary subject is just plain ignorant of what empathy is in humans.

I only think materialistic rationality should be used over belief in certain circumstances.
And I only think belief should be used over materialistic rationality in certain circumstances.I think anyone who thinks either should be used all the time as "over the other" is out to lunch.Trying to understand reality?
-our best known methods for this focus much more on materialistic rationality over beliefTrying to understand how to fully describe "love?"
-our best known methods for this focus much more on belief over materialistic rationalityThey are two different methods.
They are both valid when used for applicable situations.
They are both invalid when used inappropriately.Saying that a materialistic approach should be used over belief while attempting to understand the nature/truth about reality over and over doesn't imply that "belief" is a bad method.It simply implies that "belief" is a bad method for determining the nature/truth about reality. Which history has proven (many, many times...) that it certainly is.