People who say God gives us free will are liars.

Then are you making this argument: Because God exists and because God is both omnipotent and omniscient God cannot give 'freewill' to man? OR, are you saying "I do not have freewill because God exists and God interferes with my freewill by using His Omniscience"?

 

Ok, so we're going in circles and getting no where. You are literally incapable of understanding the logic and I tire of your "debate" method incredibly quickly these days, so we'll just end our discussion there.

Wow, such equivocation (see what I did there). And utter nonsense.

 

Wow! See what I did there? I presented an argument (question) which cannot be answered rationally.Nullity knows that he cannot say that God exists and Nullity knows that he cannot say that God has interfered with or is interfering with Nullitys' freewill without first admitting that:
1 There is a 'freewill' nature within man, and:
2 That God must exist in order for God to interfere with that freewill.

So this must be one of those topics where atheists have to deny the existence of freewill in order to justify (rationalize) a non-existence of God. So in making those rationalizations, non-theists will make a claim from ignorance (ignorance of the subject matter of 'freewill'): they cannot admit to knowing anything about 'freewill' because that would also destroy the other rationalizations about 'freewill' and about 'God'.

 

Neither. I am saying that if a god exists, and if he/she/it is omniscient, then we do not have free will.

I don't know how else to explain it to try and help you understand, I really am trying. The conflict between omniscience and free will have nothing to do with the being possessing it (God) or it being "used". Rather, the conflict is with the existence of omniscience itself.

All this doesn't even have to apply to a god. Let's say, for the sake of argument, that humans know 100% that no god exists. If my neighbor somehow all of a sudden gained omniscience (and no other "powers"), free will would cease to exist, since no one would be able to do anything contrary to what he knows will happen.

So to extrapolate a bit, even if there is a possibility that any being could be omniscient, whether or not such a being actually exists, means that there is no such thing as free will - only the illusion of it from our perspective.

In other words, logically, either the concept of free will is a possibility, or the concept of omniscience is a possibility. The mere possibility of both is not possible (that probably just confused you more).

But to extrapolate even further, we can eliminate the possibility of omniscience altogether, as it is self-paradoxical (I mentioned this to RPA1, but now is a good opportunity to explain).

Let's say that I have a choice to turn left or right. I'm also omniscient and already know that I'm going to turn left. Why can't I turn right, even if I wanted to? There is no obstruction in the road. The steering on my car works correctly. There is nothing physically stopping me. The mere existence of my infinite and perfect knowledge prevents a right turn. If I somehow turned right, that would mean that my knowledge was incorrect, and thus by definition, not omniscient.

Omniscience itself is logically impossible.

 

LMAO.

I've specifically said that it's not about God, it's about the concept of omniscience. If omniscience exists, then there is no free will.

Everything I've been saying is rational, you just fail to grasp it.

I've never denied the existence of free will. In fact, I believe we do have free will. I've only stated that if there is a god (or any being) with omniscience, then we do not have free will.

You're going to have to try a lot harder than this. Or, you can stop trying to be combative and instead learn to think logically.

 

Then you are arguing against the theory of Intelligent Design when claiming to argue against Omniscience or an Omniscient being. So, in fact you are arguing against the existence of God. Nothing new there. Your conclusion at the closing statement above would be the equivalent of saying: "I have no free will if God exists". Therefore, you are subsequently left with the decision of admitting that you either do have free will in the absence of God or that you do not have freewill with the existence of God. Either way, you lose in your argument, because you have already stated that there is no free will if omniscience exists. God is Omniscient therefore you have no free will. So, you admit that God exists when you say that you have no freewill.

BTW: you seem to be suffering from a memory lapse. I have stated previously, that I am not bound by your rules of logic, as those rules are based on a differing philosophy than what is used by Theists. If you think I am bound by the rules of logic which you employ, then you are delusional.

Perhaps according to that form of philosophy that you have chosen to use, but by the philosophy which I follow, you are way off in the ozone.

Your statement immediately above, contradicts your opening statements at the top of the page in quotations, wherein you say that this discussion is not about God, yet now you proclaim that the discussion is about God in His omniscient state of being.

Why should I put forth any greater effort, when you make such contradictions of your own words. As for me thinking logically..... I am thinking logically, just by using a different set of logical rules than what you use. There are many forms of logic.

 

That was part of a discussion you took out of context. Cheap trick. Making presumptive statements about who my 'brethren' are is an even cheaper trick. Why is it that you constantly sling personal attacks? Can't you discuss without doing this?

What's funnier is a bunch of homosexuals going around calling everyone who disagrees with them HOMOphobes and then whining about being called homos.

 

Nope, flamers describes a flamboyant homosexual..I dont see it as a dirty name. Many Gay folks use the word themselves..How is describing a flamboyant Gay person derogatory?

de·rog·a·to·ry (d-rg-tôr, -tr)
adj.
1. Disparaging; belittling: a derogatory comment.
2. Tending to detract or diminish.

flamer 948 up, 242 down

1. An outgoing homosexual, who is very open with his gayity.
2. A person who constantly starts fights on forums or message boards. Usually with many vilgar statements, and outright lies.
"That guy is ALWAYS insulting my posts, no matter what! He's such a (*)(*)(*)(*) flamer!"

Sooo, how the hell is that derogatory??

 

Out of context?

Is it even remotely possible for you to be intellectually honest?

Is this your quote?

You then went on to say:

After my responce you tried to back pedal:

Now the world can see just how intellectually dishonest you are here.

Out of context

 

I will not dignify a response to this nonsense. The only reason I even write this, so you know I’m not blowing you off.

 

And uh, by the way RPA1 - Where is the responce to this?

 

I didn't back pedal on anything. You tried to pass off the word 'flamer' as an insult to gays. I nailed you on it. All it means is flamboyant.

 

Flamer is an insult to gays.

 

That is an observation only.

Another observation. Neither one of your answers truly explains gravity.

How did the Big Bang come to be? Where did it happen? Again you are quoting observation only. You have no real answers yet claim to know everything about the universe.

Yes, again you state what you see, not the fundamental reasons. Life has not been created in a laboratory.

Just because there is no evidence doesn't mean it does not exist. Remember, atoms are a fairly recent discovery in human thinking. Left to folks who think like you, advancements would never have happened.

Then you don't know enough to adequately discount God. All you have is your belief there is no God.

Folks believe in God just as folks believe there is no God. No one (not even you) has the answers to the universe.

My questions were an effort to get you to tell me your evidence for the non-existence of an omniscience. All you gave me was conjecture. You have no idea how the universe works yet you stubbornly state there is no God and insult folks who have a different opinion.

 

I thought flamer was a term used for folks on a Forum that like to insult others until I looked it up and found out it also meant a flamboyant gay.....but then I'm not gay and not familiar with all the latest re-purposed lingo.

 

OK, I don’t have time for your bull(*)(*)(*)(*). Comeback when you have an answer past 'That is an observation only'.

As stated before, gravity is the attraction of 2 bodies in a weightlessness environment. This is 3rd grade science. I don’t have to play your piddly stupid games.

I have already stated that we do what happened before the big bang, and that is an intellectually honest answer. Saying 'god' did is a cheap and an intellectually dishonest answer know as the God Of Gaps.

Dust collapsing in on itself (theres that dam gravity in action again) is the primary reason for solar system formation.
While life has YET to be created in a lab, I guess I will have to repeat myself for the kindergarten crew. RNA has spontaneously formed in labs. We know the building block for life of found in many places in the Universe.

Ideas that come w/o evidence can be and will be dismissed just as quickly with w/o that same nonexistent evidence.

Any and all gods are nothing more than human explanations for what we do not know. Learn human nature.

Folks also believed the Earth was flat and the the Earth was the center of the Universe.

Once again, we have the Big Bang (the only model that can explain the cosmic radiation background), we see Solar Systems forming before our eyes. We have evidence for Abiogenesis (how life forms from inert matter) and we have iron-clad evidence for Evolution. It truly is not my problem you cannot comprehend this. What is my problem is you being completely disingenuous and saying no one has answers for the universe.

Gravity is the main force in the Universe. There is a black hole in the center of each and every galaxy, and all matter in that galaxy rotates around that black hole. The Big Bang may very well be a consequence of gravity.

This is not conjecture, this is facts.

Now, quit being completely disingenuous and come back when you actually have an argument. All you have presented is bull(*)(*)(*)(*) and loads of it.

 

flamer

Are you just trolling at this point?

PS: Flaim-Baiting Troll is what you are thinking of.

 

I accept your white flag...

Please explain what exactly gravity is. Does it have weight? Is it a wave, a particle? Do tell us all. Now, now....calm down.

Then you have no understanding of the universe and cannot say who or what created anything.

Yet scientists tell us the universe is expanding by observance of the red-shift. Your belief that life will be created is amusing but, no proof of anything at all. So...Why do you think molecules arrange themselves in RNA configurations in the first place? Chance? Luck?

.

Which is exactly why I dismiss your Atheistic views. You have no proof.

Why do humans even have 'human nature' in the first place?

Yeah..so?

All you have are observations, you have no answers. I am beginning to believe that Atheists are not very deep thinkers.

Yes we have observed these phenomena. Understanding the forces however, escapes us.

These are observations and yes they are factual observations but, observations nonetheless. You cannot actually manipulate gravity to your advantage (create anti-gravity shoes etc.) You did not actually see any big bang and you don't know what came before it. You don't know how big the universe really is. None of us do...Yet you categorically state there is no God.

More insults...no big surprise there...

 

I still see you do not have any legitimate answer to: 'gravity is the attraction of bodies in weightlessness environment.'

You are either trolling or are simply ignorant of what gravity is.

I have explain this to you several times: It is the attraction of two bodies in a weightlessness environment.

If you ask me again, I will simply label you as a troll and move on.

Once again, we do not what happened before the big bang, and that is an intellectually honest answer. Saying 'god' did is a cheap and an intellectually dishonest answer know as the God Of Gaps.

So the universe is expanding today? Are you so sure the universe will be expanding 10 billion years, 20 billion years, 50 billion years from now?

The Universe is far too young to make any predictions right now. It really would be a breath of fresh air if you stopped being intellectually dishonest.

Google is your friend. There are several good sources out that there that will state we are close to developing life in a lab. Its called research. You now have a choice. You can go research how close we are to creating life, or remain willfully ignorant.

Evolution itself is enough evidence to completely dismiss any and all man made gods. Once again, you can go do some research or remain willfully ignorant. Its your choice.

Genetics.

Animals 'can tell right from wrong'

you can believe in something, that doesn’t it make it true. Did I really have to explain this?

Last I checked, Observations are the foundation for knowledge. It really would be a breath of fresh air if you stopped being intellectually dishonest.

Far from it. Gravity is the attraction of bodies in weightlessness environment. This is 3rd grade science here.

AS stated before, any all gods are nothing more than nifty little answers for the universe when we do not have answers. I am beginning to believe that Theists are not very deep thinkers.

 

So far, you have not dignified anything with any of your comments. To say that you are not 'blowing' Flounder off while refusing to address the issues of his post is an oxymoron... why? Because you are blowing him off. (no pun intended).

 

Again an observation only. What exactly is the attractant? How does it work? Waves? Particles? You not-so-deftly completely side-stepped my question.

And again, I asked you to explain the mechanism of gravity which, as yet, you have utterly failed to do. You know nothing of how the universe works yet are comfortable declaring God non-existent.

We do not understand what happened before the Big Bang scenario. Therefore we no nothing of the universe and therefore we cannot make sweeping statements that there is no omnipotent entity or omniscience. I see your view as too narrow and just as myopic as you think devout Christians are.

You described the beginning of the universe as dust collapsing on itself however you were not there and do not know this and, it is a fact that the universe is expanding. I realize there are theories of expanding/contracting universe however no one really knows.

How do you know this? Is it possible there have been many big bangs? You don't really know do you? Yet you come here and insult me saying I am 'intellectually dishonest.' Seems to me that description fits YOU pretty well.

I know all about those experiments, probably more than you however, even if some life form is created in a test tube who is to say that is not part of the omniscience?

God could have created evolution. Even Darwin said so.

No I understand completely, one can believe there is no God but that doesn't make it true.

Last I checked, observation is only one facet of the scientific method. Google is your friend...check it out.

Do you think that repeating the same argument somehow gives it legitimacy? How many times do I have to explain to you that you know nothing about how gravity actually works. Just on that point alone it is obvious you know nothing about the universe and cannot say whether or not there is a God or omnipotent or omniscience.

And Atheism is intellectually dishonest because it presumes to know how the universe works with absolutely no proof.

 

To get back on topic.

You did say you knew each outcome, the problem is that you don't know which fork I will take. 'That' is not 'all knowing' ..

Plus the Idea that God "restricts" some of his omniscience so that we can claim we have freewill is quite silly,IMO. (No offense intended)

 

Yeah! And people who lie are doing God's will! And Liars who do God's will are people! And, and, and other stuff too!

 

There is a difference between knowing you are going to do something, and reacting to prevent it.

Again, if I know Lloyd likes to pick his nose when he's nervous, and Sandy, whom he has a crush on, walk by, then I know Lloyd is going to pick his nose. It doesn't mean I am going to rush across the room and stop him from picking his nose.

Besides, why did God create all this?

If the answer were to allow us the opportunity to grow and learn, to see the truth of his wisdom before rejoining him for eternity (or whatever lies beyond the time space continum), then God may know everything you are going to do, but he has genuinely no reason to not allow you to learn and grow - to not seek his wisdom and truth on your own.

Beisdes why limit omniscience? If God is capable of ALL things, that would include allowing choice - even if we do not know how he does it.

 

The fact he knows each outcome really makes knowing which fork you take a moot point anyway.

Think about a multi-dimensional universe. You actually exist in all dimensions but, are only aware of this one. God, on the other hand, in His omnipotence, sees all and knows all. Perhaps the decision you make as to which fork you take has an equally viable opposite decision that is also executed. God it aware of all decisions and all outcomes but you are not. In one dimension you go say...left and make it home...In the other you plunge to your death.