People who say God gives us free will are liars.

True.. I would never think that God would limit omniscience. I also leave room for the fact that I don't have it all figured out.

But I am an odd duck Neutral. I'm not certain,no, but predetermination sits strong with me. I don't preach it but I explore it.

 

I think the steadfast refusal to even consider an omniscience or creator is a pretty myopic way to live one's life. Pedantry seems to be the hallmark of most Atheists I have encountered.

 

There exists no framework. Assuming it's all legitimate, we haven't even mastered concepts like altruism... let alone the ability to comprehend and practice the thoughts & actions of a God.

Sure, it is. If I know you'll take millions of dollars over 2 dollars, I didn't make you do it. Knowledge of decisions doesn't mean you lack free will.

 

What is your intent (definition) behind the use of the word "framework". Please define in your own terms.

Assuming what is all legitimate? Your use of the word "its" is ambiguous. Who is the "we" that you reference? The remainder of your comment is purely opinion as I am certain that you do not represent the voice of the entirety of mankind.

 

I think your mixed metaphor is pretty illogical and not at all analogous to the question of free will. You're just conflating "freedom of action" with "freedom from price".

I honestly wonder if you were intoxicated when you wrote this, it seems out of character for you.

 

A template (or some sort of researched findings) to observe regarding a God. I spoke about us (human beings) not being able to comprehend the reasons why a God would create beings that he/she/it knows is already doomed (as far as the choices we'll make that incriminate our respective existences). We deal with it emotionally, an example being "how could he do such a dreadful thing" and we're the ones assuming a God would even express emotion. We don't know either way, making attempts to understand futile.

 

No, I'm arguing against the existence of omniscience.

No, it would be the equivalent of saying: "I have no free will if God exists and God is omniscient".

No, I admit that we have free will in the absence of omniscience and that we do not have free will with the existence of omniscience.

I've lost nothing. You can't grasp the discussion, so you're not even playing the same game (figurative "game").

No, it was always conditional - if God exists and God is omniscient. Even though you believe, you cannot know whether either is true, so there's no point for you to even make this argument.

Ah yes, the whole "I live in magical fantasy realm where the rules of logic do not apply to me" argument that you love using in an attempt to weasel your way out of an argument. That's delusional.

Not even remotely.

I never said that the discussion is not about God, obviously God has been part of the subject. I was saying that the existence of God, by itself, does not preclude free will, but rather, the existence of omniscience precludes free will.

I know you're struggling, but please try to keep up.

 

This displays the same misunderstanding as Incorporeal. There does not need to be any action taken to physically prevent some thing. Perfect infinite knowledge itself prevents anything contradictory to that knowledge from occurring.

Your example is not omniscience, but rather an application of probabilities.

Assuming there is a god, that is a wonderful question.

Omniscience is self-limiting. If I am omniscient, I cannot take an action contradictory to what I know I will do. This is paradoxical (which I explained a couple pages back).

But omnipotence and omniscience cannot coexist, it creates another logical paradox (which I also talked about a couple pages back).

This actually brings up another point. Let's assume that a god exists and he is omnipotent, but not omniscience. But, having infinite power, he could give himself omniscience. Uh oh, now what?

Both omniscience and omnipotence, either in combination or individually, are not logically possible.

 

But an omniscience god would know all of that. He would know that in this universe you will turn left, and also that in an alternate universe, you will instead turn right.

It's still an absolute perfect knowledge.

 

I'm an atheist, and I've never denied the possibility of a creator, but omniscience is just not logically possible.

 

Trolling ALERT! Trolling ALERT! Trolling ALERT!

How does gravity work?

Yes we can. What is so hard to understand about this statement: All gods were invented by man to give man answers when man did not have any.

Here you are being completely disingenuous here. I said SOLAR SYSTEMS form by clouds of dust falling into themselves, NOT the Universe.

DO you even read what I post?

Sure there could be. We could be in a cycle of big bangs then a big crunch. Followed by a big bang, then a big crunch, followed by a big bang............................

That is plausible. What is not plausible is an omnipotent being drempt up by humans to give us answers when we didn’t have one.

Very easy – why isn't in the bible, or any other holy book??

Why isn't in the bible, or any other holy book??

This is where theism breaks down. Why isn't the scientific discoveries in the holy books. Why are they not foreseen? Omniscience would indicate that this being knows what humans would accomplish. Yet, ever holy book out there gets thrashed by science. If this omniscient being exists, its pretty bizarre that this omniscient holy book is wrong wrong wrong.

I do have an simple explanation for this thou: Any and all gods are nothing more than man made ideas to explain the unexplainable. Not that I expect this to sink in with you.

For someone who claims to no more about science than I do (you did claim this 2 quotes up), this is a pretty ignorant statement.

 

I know.

 

So prove it.

If you have omniscience then by definition EVERYTHING is possible.

What you are saying, is that you do not logically understand how God does it. What does the Bible say about that?

What does the Bible say about God's ominscience?

Because unless you referrence this stuff, all you are really debating is what you think omniscience is. And, quite frankly, who cares?

 

That is one of perhaps many defects in a philosophy which utilizes the form of logic which you incorporate into your mental processes. That form of logic that you use is extremely restrictive, while being seductive and compelling.

 

Gee stones.... that is extremely nice of you to announce your posting of new comments into the forum.

 

There is one tiny teeny little problem with your claims. That problem is called PROOF. Your claims make the foundation for fantastic fairy tales, but they do not attach themselves to evidence of any form other than personal opinion.

 

What? No it isn't. Omniscience is about knowledge. Knowing everything does not give one the ability to do everything.

The Bible is irrelevant. It doesn't matter what some 2000 year old (unconfirmable even) stories say. This is about real applicable logic.

What do you think a logical proof is? It's not just "what I think".

Omniscience is a bivalent property. One is either omniscient or not. There is no "partial" omniscience. It's absolute - all or nothing. So given the definition of omniscience, and the law of non-contradiction (contradicting statements cannot both be true at the same time), one can create a logical proof to show that omniscience is not possible, which I have already done.

 

Law of noncontradiction. Learn it.

 

Yes! You have created such a 'logical proof'. Now the question comes to mind. Is your knowledge level one which could be considered "omniscient"? If your knowledge level is one that can be considered as omniscient, then your 'logical proof' would necessarily be correct; However, if your knowledge level is not one that can be considered as 'omniscient', then your 'logical proof' is nothing more than speculation as it is subject to error, thus rendering your form of logic as being imperfect and also subject to error.

 

Show and prove any of the perceived 'contradictions' which you store within that database you call a memory.

 

Nice graphic of the earth with strings attached. Of course you realize that the earth is not suspended is space by strings...Yes? No? You continue to evade my questions: Is gravity a wave or particle? Answer the question....

More evasion....What existed before the Big Bang? Answer the question...

The Universe is a collection of solar systems. Did you know this? Yes? No? More evasion....Where does the Universe reside? Answer the question...

Off topic, useless and insulting.

Yeah we COULD be in BIG BANG cycle or NOT. There could have been a big bang OR NOT. You don't really know anything about the workings of the Universe, when it came to be, what went before or even where it resides yet somehow you feel comfortable denigrating those who believe in a Creator. Based on what? YOUR unsupported beliefs.

BTW Big Bang is just a hypothesis....there are others...

"Big Bang Abandoned in New Model of the Universe

A new cosmology successfully explains the accelerating expansion of the universe without dark energy; but only if the universe has no beginning and no end."

Did you know that is what most Christians believe? No beginning and no end, life everlasting? Could it be that religious beliefs can mirror scientific observation and inquiry?

http://www.wired.com/beyond_the_bey...se-mass-and-time-convert-to-length-and-space/

The fact remains YOU DON'T KNOW and you have no better explanations than religious folks. All you have is your belief. Yet you are comfortable denigrating those with faith.

There are many interpreters of the Bible and yes, even some that point out where it does mention evolution however, we are not discussing the Bible or Holy scripture we are discussing the presence/non-presence of an omniscience and, just to re-cap, I do not discount an omniscience. My mind is open. You, however, completely discount an omniscience and base your position solely on observations on which you assign belief.

You have no proof there is no Creator, God, omniscience etc. You cannot provide any salient facts about the Universe, what was before, where it is, how big it is etc. Nor can you provide the exact mechanism of something as mundane as gravity. Yet you are comfortable insulting my intelligence.

Due to your intractable, dogmatic and (IMO) narrow-minded Atheistic views together with your abject refusal to answer key questions about that which you claim is true, I see no reason to continue this discussion.

 

No! Don't leave the discussion....SERIOUSLY speaking... you are a breath of fresh air on this forum... Do continue.

 

Fallacy - one does not need to be omniscient to create a valid logical proof.

How about instead of being dishonest and attempting misdirection (as always) by doing nothing more than telling me either how I'm wrong, or why I might not be correct, you present an actual argument that details why I'm incorrect. Take the logical arguments I presented, pick them apart and actually show why I'm wrong. Try to have an actual discussion with me instead of constant trolling. No argumentative fallacies (strawmen, red herrings, ad hominems, etc), and no word games.

Let's start with an easy one... do you agree or disagree that contradicting statements cannot both be true at the same time?

You can try to take it from there on your own.

 

I already did, you didn't respond to it. I presented a logical proof in the form of an analogy. Here it is again:

Now please, try to have an actual discussion with me. Show me where I am incorrect and explain why.

 

A totally hypothetical example is only proof of an overactive imagination. It is a theory at best but is not PROOF.