People who say God gives us free will are liars.

I think its just a bad attempt at trolling.

 

Wrong again. Omnipotence is what would "force".... "Omniscience" does not indicate any type of 'force'. Learn the difference between those two terms.

 

No. Infinite knowledge would mean no concept of or adherence to time (or rather how we perceive it). From our viewpoint, it would include future events that have not yet happened.

All knowledge, everything, absolute.

 

Oh I certainly know the difference and what both mean.

The issue is, this is a logical concept that you are unable to grasp. I do not mean that in an insulting manner. I am not saying that you are not intelligent enough to understand. Rather, this is a common occurrence with those who have a deeply held world-view such as yourself. Your beliefs preclude you from understanding. It's called cognitive dissonance.

Without that world-view, it's a fairly simple concept, as there is no conflict to keep me from understanding. Omniscience is perfect infinite knowledge. It cannot be incorrect. If there is some omniscient god who knows I will turn left, then I cannot do anything other than turn left. That god does not have to physically take any action. The attribute of having omniscience itself is what "forces" me to turn left.

Re-read Kmisho's excellent post on equivocation to understand why my use of the word "force" does not have quite the same meaning that you use when reading it.

 

I am merely conveying the labels given in discussions among theists. They are not merely my own labels. At least Christians are honest enough to question themselves unlike most atheists who accept a Godless existence out of hand.

Why can't an omniscient entity choose not to know which decision a non-omniscient might make? The omniscient would know every outcome of every decision but may want the non-omniscient entity to have the free will to choose the particular path. Isn't choosing not to know also part of being omniscient?

So you are precluding an omniscient being from choosing to give free will? That is illogical if you ask me.

Christianity and Christians are routinely viciously attacked by a lot of folks right here on this Forum. That is hatred no matter how you try to cut it.

 

Out of hand? Hardly.

Atheists like my self see there is no evidence for any god. In the mean time, there is evidence for a natural occurring universe.

And christians do not question themselves. That is an absurd statement.

 

Yes there is if the omnipotent one wishes it to be so.

That is not my contention, you have obviously either not read or failed to comprehend.

Can an omnipotence not create free will? How do you know this?

Stop playing the victim...YOU wrote:

YOUR words...Now...man-up and stop whining...

 

And homosexuals are not routinely viciously attacked by a lot of folks right here on this Forum right?

You are not guilty of that correct?

 

Oh! The issue of this thread started out about me and my abilities? My goodness... you do need to go back to kindergarten and start all over again with your reading skills.

Again, your comments speak boldly against your declaration of knowing the difference between Omnipotence and Omniscience. Omniscience does not relate to any type of 'force'.... check out some dictionaries.

Why don't you explain it instead of leading someone on a wild goose chase. If kmisho wants to discuss equivocation then that is his business, and equivocation is not and has not been a topic of discussion within this thread.

The problem you and kmisho is having is the very definition of Omniscient and the link provided in the notation of that definition that leads to .... guess what????

"omniscient
listen thesaurus

adjective
having infinite knowledge; knowing all things

Origin: ML omnisciens < L omnis, all + sciens, knowing: see science

Related Forms:"

 

If you create the situation and know the outcome, then the people in the situation have no choice but to do what your outcome is.

That is not freewill.

I am exaplining to you what is or inst freewill. Please do try to keep up..mmmkay?

Yes, if he is only omnipotence. If he also knows what will happen, then there is not freewill.


Stop playing the victim...YOU wrote:

YOUR words...Now...man-up and stop whining...

Dont ya hate it when your own words can be used againts you?

 

Yup,,,called consequences.......

 

I was not trying to imply that you made up the labels. I only referred to them as "yours" since you introduced them to this discussion.

This is a mischaracterization. Most atheists accept the existence of a "god" as a possibility (referring to a generic god, not the Abrahamic God, but that's a discussion for another topic), only that there is no valid evidence to support that conclusion, and thus, no reason to believe.

Because the word "omniscience" (and its various forms) does not refer the ability to know everything, but rather, the attribute of possessing infinite knowledge.

Actually, it's perfectly logical. See the above explanation of ability vs. possession.

I was not saying that there is no one who actually does "hate" Christians, but simply that criticism of Christianity does not imply hatred of Christians, even if said criticism is not very civil.

For example, I will admit to not always being the most civil with my criticisms of Christianity, but I am certainly not a "Christian hater".

 

Very simply put: If you or anyone else is arguing that God does not give us 'freewill', there is the inherent understanding that you are placing God in a position of existence wherein God would be able to control your actions. Thank you for all of your arguments in favor of the existence of God.

 

I see..so the universe 'occurred?' Where did it 'occur?' Does it reside somewhere? Where? How did it start? Big Bang? OK then....Where was this 'big bang?' What was before the big bang? What is dark matter? What happens after death? (Since you know there is no God, apparently you have spoken to dead people). What exactly is gravity? How does it work? Can you create gravity? You will need to answer all of these questions and more if you have any hope of explaining why you are an Atheist.......Other than your own belief of course.
I provided proof of theists debating omniscience. Christians are theists. Have you been actually reading the thread?

 

What exactly is gravity? <---- really? Cmon,. its common knowledge, gravity is the attraction of bodies in weightlessness environment. This was actually tested on the space shuttle....when a astronaut tossed up a bag of sand, the sand started clumping together &#8211; two or more bodies with mass being attracted to one another in a weightlessness environment.

There is evidence for The Big Bang. The Big Bang is the only explanation for the cosmic radiation background. All other hypothesis for the formation fail to explain the cosmic radiation background.

We see solar Systems forming. We know Evolution is 100% fact. We know the building block for life are found in outer space. We have seen strands of RNA spontaneously form in labs. Life forming from inert matter is beyond plausible.

What happens after death? You die and your molecules gets absorbed back into the Earth. If you want to say there is an afterlife, care to provide any evidence for it?

We don&#8217;t know what dark matter is, nor do we know what happened before The Big Bang. We may never know what happnened before The Big Bang. That is an honest answer. The God of the gaps is not.

You debated omniscience? WOW! Does this mean we know have Verifiable Evidence that an be tested by anyone for this 'god'? No? Ok, back to square one I see.

Do you want an honest debate or just throw a bunch of BS questions around?

 

I see so 'possession' precludes the omnipotent one from assigning free will...That is not omniscience then ...is it?

I figure of someone is constantly uncivil toward me chances are they dislike me or even hate me.

OK...I suppose you are uncivil because someone was uncivil towards you and so on. 'You were uncivil then I was uncivil' and so it goes....I have nothing against atheists either...One of my good friends is an atheist but we agree on most other things. He too is conflicted when it comes to God (or god) I usually cut him some slack.

 

Misrepresentation on your part.

Now you are attempting to disregard a major part of the definition of the word 'omniscient' which is the root word for 'omniscience'.

"omniscience
listen

noun
the state or quality of being omniscient"

"Dictionary Home » Dictionary Definitions » omniscient



"omniscient
listen thesaurus

adjective
having infinite knowledge; knowing all things"

Check it out yourself at http://www.yourdictionary.com

 

Honestly I have seen no vicious attacks on homosexuals in this Forum. I see it the other way around. Words like 'homophobe' are routinely thrown at those that disagree with gay-marriage for instance.

That is correct.

 

That's not what I meant. I was referring to "the issue" of you not understanding that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive, not to this thread as a whole.

Yeah, I didn't think you would suddenly get it this time, which is why I explained why I think you won't get it. As I already said, my usage of the word "force" is not the same as the meaning you use when reading it.

A wild goose chase?? I looked it up for you and provided you with the link, all you have to do is click on it. But I suppose by doing that, you would remove your ability to post yet another fallacious red herring. Tell ya what, I'll make it even easier by quoting it right here (apologies Kmisho):

Guess he didn't have to wait too long, eh?

It is relevant in helping to explain why you cannot understand.

There is no problem, I agree with the definition you pasted.

If by "the link provided in the notation of that definition that leads to .... guess what????" you are referring to the link to the word "science", I fail to see your point. It's not implying that science leads to omniscience, just the etymology of the word.

 

bull(*)(*)(*)(*).

A quick search of the word 'Flamers' reveals 155 posts.

And that is just one of the many derogatory names I have heard on this forum.

Would you care to be intellectually honest now?

 

And seemingly you still don't grasp the difference in meaning of the words Omniscient and Omnipotent. Now why does that not surprise me?

A waste of your time and the bandwidth on this forum. I had already looked it up, thus enabling me to qualify my statement regarding the kmisho post as being a 'wild goose chase'.

It might have been relevant to you and your understanding, but it did nothing to provide you any input on the terms 'Omniscient' and "Omnipotent".

Then you agree that there is a significant difference between the two.

Wrong again. It provides an inference. There is only one entity that is believed to be Omniscient, and that entity is God. It shows that science deals with knowledge and therefore places God as the source of all scientific knowledge as well as the source of all knowledge. Even in the scientific sense; and that seriously offends you and kmisho and others who praise 'science'.... just the knowing that science is related by inference to the knowledge held by God.. There is that ugly word that Atheists don't like to hear, being associated with and playing in that sandbox of science.

 

Liar

Oh EXCUUUUUSE us for calling them 'homos' when they routinely call us 'heteros' and 'homophobes' Please....what the he!! is a 'flamer' anyway? Never heard that before. Wait....I looked it up.."Extremely flamboyant homosexual" THAT is hate? Come on now...

You 'flamers' routinely call us heterosexuals 'breeders'.....Grow up...

 

I am merely sated that if you want to sit here and whine about:

Then you need to look in the mirror and your own brethren before commenting.

Its funny, the side the complains about insults is always the religious side, even thou they are the most guilty of it themselves.

 

Not sure if I understand your question correctly.

One who is omnipotent, but not omniscient, could give free will, since he would have no idea what choices would be made. Introducing omniscience into the equation invalidates the concept of free will, as no choice could be made which contradicts that knowledge.

It all gets even more interesting than that. Omnipotence and omniscience are themselves mutually exclusive. Infinite knowledge would also apply to the being who possessed it. So an omniscient being would also know everything he would do. This would preclude him from also possessing infinite power, since that omnipotence would give the being the ability to make a choice he knew that he was not going to make. But omniscience is perfect and cannot be wrong, so the being could not do something which conflicts with his knowledge of his choices.

It's a paradox.


EDIT: Just wanted to also point out that the concept of either omniscience or omnipotence, each individually, are self-paradoxical. I'd be happy to discuss this with you further if you'd like, but I'm not going to get into it here just now, as it could get quite lengthy.

 

I already did check it out. No where does it refer to ability. The definition "the state or quality of being omniscient" would logically be expanded to say "the state or quality of having infinite knowledge". Which is exactly what I said - you just helped reinforce my point.