Free will vs Omniscience

It is sad to read what you and ringo market, but I will attempt yet again to share my position. Understand that I cannot provide the evidence that critically thinking scientists require, but the critical thinking scientists such as Dr.John Lennox did not arrive at their belief through the scientific method. That is simply a silly assumption. Impossibilities? With God all things are possible. God is no magic genie, however. Your credentials are unimpressive to me. You are not a proponent or advocate for Christianity. What you have done is attempted to hijack the belief and redefine what being a Christian really is. If everyone listened to you and actually did what you advocate, the world would be a better place only if God agreed that Jesus was unnecessary to be in communion with, adored, and lifted up. Humanism would be the ultimate societal state of affairs and we could throw God away as a species...evolving beyond the "bronze-age beliefs, as Tangle also advocates. When you meet the Jesus whom you advocate throwing away some day, you hopefully will laugh and realize that God played a giant joke on your intellect. You more likely will weep when you realize that the judge will have perfect knowledge of everything you have done and have taught. I will put in a good word for you, however...as if my good words would carry any weight! Tangle asks me why I stay around this place. The best answer that I can come up with is that I care about my arguments and about the people here at EvC who read them and challenge me on them. Iron sharpens iron. I am asssuming that you imply the same thing about Jesus Christ. We believe that He is God.
If "through Him all things were created" then that explains a lot about where things came from and is certainly a better explanation than Dr.Hawkings. I will agree wwith you that many apologists are at best lazy and at worst deceitful in what they sell. I like to think of myself as a Thinking Apologist, but I wont simply throw apologetics away. Evidence is not the only tool that one can use to arrive at a reasonable belief. And thus you never saw any good reason why God (through Jesus Christ) was real? OK got it. That explains a lot. Juvenissun take note. And by the way, I dont learn what I believe through apologists. I learn my beliefs through the Holy Spirit living in me. The problem is that you assume that your explanation is the explanation. I make the same assumption, except the God I market is the absolute truth. That all gods described by humans being equally valid is a lie. You dont know that. The most important thing is Jesus Christ. Failure to see that makes the whole Bible just another book of ancient myths and literature. If it did not start with God, it started with your own ego and that of every other socratic critically thinking master who is(are) blind.

Not much point mentioning them then. With the exception of killing the baby, you are not able to do those things at all, ever. They are not humanly possible. It is not your alleged freewill that prevents you, it's physics. So you accept that your freewill is limited. Ok. Well nearly. I actually say that because our freewill is bounded by all sorts of constraints, some simply internal, we do not actually have freewill in the religious sense at all. It's simply another religious fiction. Our ability to choose between good and evil is not entirely possible.

Phat, there is evidence of the universes beginning and of the beginning of life her on Earths and the evidence refutes the Just So story that is told in genesis 1.Stop denying what can be seen and tested and verified only to embrace the fantasy.

You're still misrepresenting yourself.I can kill a baby.
What I can't do - is "kill a baby without feeling (lots of) remorse."
But I still have freewill to choose to kill a baby.Just as I can take out the trash.
What I can't do - is "take out the trash without feeling (a little) remorse."
But I still have freewill to choose to take out the trash.Empathy does not "prevent me" from killing a baby or taking out the trash.
It only "prevents me" from doing them without any feeling of remorse.But "feeling remorse" doesn't "remove freewill."Because I can still choose to kill a baby or take out the trash.I wasn't comparing "killing a baby" to "ignoring gravity."
You moved the goalposts to "killing a baby without feeling remorse."
So I then compared "killing a baby without feeling remorse" to "ignoring gravity" - and neither of these "constraints" remove my ability to have free will.
I can still kill a baby. I think I still don't understand what you're getting at.I can't choose to "kill a baby without feeling remorse."
But I can choose to "kill a baby."Since, to me, "killing a baby" (while feeling remorse or not) is evil... and "not killing the baby" would be good... I am choosing good over evil by choosing to not kill babies, even though I could (the feelings or remorse I would have are irrelevant to the action being evil - to me.)I suspect this is a difference in how I think of freewill/choices/good-evil and you-think-religions-think about freewill/choices/good-evil.Without understanding, specifically, what you mean by "religious sense of freewill" and "choosing between good and evil" - I can no longer comment.

I don't believe that you could actually kill a baby just because you wanted to, or to prove that you could.The odds are against you being a psychopath and even further against you being the kind that kills.So unless you want to tell me that you are a psychopath, I saying that you, like most of us can't just kill babies on a whim.

Your belief is as good as anyone's belief that the world is flat, or that The Flood occurred 5000 years ago.My belief is that I could kill a baby just because I wanted to, or prove that I could - but I choose not to.And the (currently available, but incomplete on the subject) evidence is on my side:-people are capable of doing things they've never done before
-people are capable of doing things they regret, even if they know they will regret them beforehand
-killing a baby is well within my "physical ability" as a human You're talking about the difference between not being able to do something, and choosing not to do something.For some reason, against the evidence, you've decided that the answer is "you can't possibly do it."
Why would you pick that? I am not a psychopath.
I could kill a baby on a whim.
I simply choose not to do so.Edited by Stile, : Spelling and grammar and forgotten words

Do you know how much scientific information is given by the first three words (In the beginning ...) of Gen 1:1Based only on that three words, you SHOULD believe in this God.

It depends on two definitions: kill and baby.
If defined properly, anyone can do it.

If we do not have free will, then there is no need for Christianity. Or, more precisely, there is no Christianity.The free will in Christianity is demonstrated way back to Gen 2:16. Gen 2:17 is even more clear on that. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

No scientific information is given in any of Genesis 1.

I guess you do not care about any scientific knowledge. You are a blessed person.

Don't tell them that! It only supports their belief that it was all made up! You are throwing the Holy Baby out with the bathwater. In regards to free will, it is a basis for your and my belief, but i'm not sure what old jar has to say about it except that he defends the rationale that God if God exists could not reasonably foreknow everything without being a God that should be opposed and rejected.jars basic argument is that humans invent our ideas, beliefs, and concepts about GOD. He basically affirms that Christians may well all agree that GOD exists but that Christianity splits apart philosophically as we humans attempt to describe what Christianity is. (And WHO or WHAT GOD is.)

You really gotta stop misrepresenting what I say Phat. No Phat, that is not what I say.Go back and read what I actually post, what is actually written. No Phat, that is not the argument but rather the conclusion based on all of the evidence I have provided you over the decades .Do not continue misrepresenting what I do say.

I attempt to separate the fantasy from the actuality. Do you respect the Book of Job?Remember how you always state that humans are charged to correct God? What do you think about the comment from Eliphaz the Temanite? (Job 4:1)Also note what God says to Job. Can you imagine God saying anything similar to you? Do you believe that GOD ever speaks to humanity through the Bible or do you believe that human interpretation of what God might say are all that we really have? What are you gonna do? Smite me? You misrepresent what I say all the time. If you cant hang on the porch, go back inside.

That is simply not rue Phat. You never even consider any actuality.The Bible stories are filled with contradictions, falsehoods, ambiguity and fantasy Phat. The issue is that you like to pick just the parts that you like and deny those that get your panties in a wad. ALL of the evidence supports the latter as a correct conclusion. I will continue to point out every time you misrepresent what I say and also every time you refuse to address the issues raised and just palm the pea.