Sorry for reviving the old debate, but I thought I could throw a new spin on it. Rust, you said that

quote:

If god knows I will choose 'A', then I cannot choose 'B' because that would refute his omniscience. This shows a lack of free will to change my mind, therefore I lack free will. Either justify that or admit that you cannot.



Your argument fails, because you have failed to understand god. This is kind-of hard to explain, but I'll try anyway. You see, god exists outside of time. Time has no meaning to him. Picture a 2-dimentional plane. Let's say there's a circle located at (0, 0). Let's say this circle moves to (1, 1) over a period of 5 seconds. A square locaed in the plane sees a circle moving. But you, however, are 3-dimentional. You exist outside the plane. You don't see a circle moving at all. Time to the 2-dimentional beings is just a 3rd spacial dimention to you. So what you see is a cylinder. A lopsided cylinder, with one base located at (0, 0, 0) and one base at (1, 1, 5). You don't see anything moving at all. You could look at one end of the cylinder, and say, "A circle is going to move to (1, 1)" and you could look at the other end of the cylinder at say "A circle has already moved to (1, 1)" and you'd be right in both cases, because their time means nothing to you.

So god is a 4-dimentional being. He doesn't see people moving at all, our concept of time means nothing to him. The entire history of our universe is just one big shape to him that he can look at.

I already covered that in the thread, so please don't say that my argument fails if you haven't read my reply to that "problem" of yours.

As I say in the thread, that "problem" isn't a problem at all.

So long as he has knowledge of actions before they happen (which is a necessary requirement of his omnipotence) then my point stands. Whether he is exists outside of time is irrelevant.

So he can reside wherever the hell he wants, in whatever number of dimensions he wants, for whatever reasons he wants, and the argument would still stand. So long as he has foreknowledge (which, again, is an absolute requirement of omniscience - it follows that he must have foreknowledge in order to be have knowledge of everything [omniscience]) then the point still stands.

This, without even delving into the problem of you allegedly knowing where a god resides in respect to time. You have absolutely no way of knowing if he exists outside of time, so even if we take your argument as valid (which it isn't) it would still amount to nothing but conjecture.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-06-2006).]

Game. Set. Match.

quote:Originally posted by bonkers:

Game. Set. Match.

Let me try to explain it a little more clearly.

quote:So long as he has knowledge of actions before they happen (which is a necessary requirement of his omnipotence) then my point stands. Whether he is exists outside of time is irrelevant.

Like I said, our time is just a 4th spacial dimention to him. The word before makes no sense in this context. Would you say left is before right? Or up is before down?

When you look at the cylinder, do you see any events happening? Do you see a circle moving from one point to another? Or do you just see a cylinder? That is what god sees when he looks down at the universe.

I'm sorry if I have failed to explain it clearly enough. And obviously, there's no way to prove any of this. But you're saying an omniscient god and free will can not exist at the same time. I'm saying they can.

It's a shame your pathetic excuse for a brain can't comprehend this.

quote:Originally posted by Aseren:

It's a shame your pathetic excuse for a brain can't comprehend this.

quote:Originally posted by bonkers:

Game. Set. Match.

Seriously, DeadDogsEye. Game. Set. Match.

quote:Originally posted by DeadDogsEye:



Like I said, our time is just a 4th spacial dimention to him. The word before makes no sense in this context. Would you say left is before right? Or up is before down?

When you look at the cylinder, do you see any events happening? Do you see a circle moving from one point to another? Or do you just see a cylinder? That is what god sees when he looks down at the universe.

I'm sorry if I have failed to explain it clearly enough. And obviously, there's no way to prove any of this. But you're saying an omniscient god and free will can not exist at the same time. I'm saying they can.

The problem is, again, that you're ignoring the definition of omniscience. Foreknowledge is knowledge of the future. Omniscience means possessing all knowledge. An omniscient being therefore, necessarrily possesses foreknowledge (as it is knowledge). Foreknowledge refutes free will by the argument already made.

Again, whether he exists "outside of time" has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed, since I only need to say that he possesses foreknowledge for the argument to be true, and I can say that without a shadow of a doubt because it directly follows from the definition of omniscience.

Your argument fails, because it is unnecessary, and ultimately a red-herring. We need only establish that he possesses foreknowledge, and that follows from the definition of omniscience - hence it is already established when the initial premise is given.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-06-2006).]

There's really not much else to say about the problem of a perfect being existing and free will.

DeadDogsEye, here's some links that may provide you with some insight:

Newcomb's paradox (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Newcomb%27s_paradox)

Problem of evil (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Problem_of_evil)

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

The problem is, again, that you're ignoring the definition of omniscience. Foreknowledge is knowledge of the future. Omniscience means possessing all knowledge. An omniscient being therefore, necessarrily possesses foreknowledge (as it is knowledge). Foreknowledge refutes free will by the argument already made.

Again, whether he exists "outside of time" has absolutely nothing to do with what is being discussed, since I only need to say that he possesses foreknowledge for the argument to be true, and I can say that without a shadow of a doubt because it directly follows from the definition of omniscience.

Your argument fails, because it is unnecessary, and ultimately a red-herring. We need only establish that he possesses foreknowledge, and that follows from the definition of omniscience - hence it is already established when the initial premise is given.





I'll try one more time but, I doubt this will change anything.

Foreknowledge doesn't mean that one doesn't have a free will to determine the next step they take in life. There is nothing about foreknowledge that determines the outcome or controls the outcome of events. It is only knowledge of the outcome.



Foreknowledge is just that. Knowing before hand prior to it occuring. It is not saying that foreknowledge controls the destiny and direction of anything. In fact knowledge is nothing without action, which is presented in this case.

What you are saying is if someone had knowledge of your future that means they control your very actions and your very will. This could only be true if someone had prior knowledge of your future and then intervined in your life with the idea they can change your predestined future. I would accept then you would have no free will at that point.

This is where your argument fails because we know, by reality, that nothing is defining or shaping our future but the decisions we freely make (vice influences of laws and conscience.)

Reality says; we freely choose our future void of influence or intervention of an all knowing God. God has not determined anything of your life or does he determine anything of your life. He just knows how it plays out in the end.

This of course hinges on believing that a God exists at all. If you don't believe then your answer stands well to comfort you in your own views of the world and all it's workings.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



I'll try one more time but, I doubt this will change anything.

Foreknowledge doesn't mean that one doesn't have a free will to determine the next step they take in life. There is nothing about foreknowledge that determines the outcome or controls the outcome of events. It is only knowledge of the outcome.



Foreknowledge is just that. Knowing before hand prior to it occuring. It is not saying that foreknowledge controls the destiny and direction of anything. In fact knowledge is nothing without action, which is presented in this case.

What you are saying is if someone had knowledge of your future that means they control your very actions and your very will. This could only be true if someone had prior knowledge of your future and then intervined in your life with the idea they can change your predestined future. I would accept then you would have no free will at that point.

This is where your argument fails because we know, by reality, that nothing is defining or shaping our future but the decisions we freely make (vice influences of laws and conscience.)

Reality says; we freely choose our future void of influence or intervention of an all knowing God. God has not determined anything of your life or does he determine anything of your life. He just knows how it plays out in the end.

This of course hinges on believing that a God exists at all. If you don't believe then your answer stands well to comfort you in your own views of the world and all it's workings.



That's not what Rust is saying. He (right?) means that it's the foreknowledge itself that constitutes the lack of free will. If someone KNOWS that something is going to occur in the future, a 100 percent chance, it's not THEM that has the control, it's the fact that they know. Because if so, then what has been predicted has to occur, as well as the events/thoughts/choices leading up to it. Nothing will be able to change its course.

This is not saying that we do not have free will. It's saying that if anybody knows anything for certain about the future (as in how it would appear if it was a screenplay/movie), then we cannot have free will. At all.

I'm still trying to think of a way around this, but I'm fucking stuck.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

That's not what Rust is saying. He (right?) means that it's the foreknowledge itself that constitutes the lack of free will. If someone KNOWS that something is going to occur in the future, a 100 percent chance, it's not THEM that has the control, it's the fact that they know. Because if so, then what has been predicted has to occur, as well as the events/thoughts/choices leading up to it. Nothing will be able to change its course.

This is not saying that we do not have free will. It's saying that if anybody knows anything for certain about the future (as in how it would appear if it was a screenplay/movie), then we cannot have free will. At all.

I'm still trying to think of a way around this, but I'm fucking stuck.



I fully understand what Rust is saying. He is saying that foreknowledge voids free will. He is saying that we can either have free will and a God that is not all knowing or there is no God. Nowhere is there any room for the possibilty in his response for the existence of both.

His argument holds a great amount of credence if there is no God or God isn't what He claims to be.

The problem is God claims to be all knowing and He claims He has predestined us but, to be honest - I can not find the words "free will" in regards to a birth right in the bible.

So, in fact Rust may be right after all - an all knowing God predestines us to Heaven or Hell and free will is just an illusion.

I might concede to this thought but, ironically I still have a choice to make - do I follow God or not?

Thus by having this very choice shows that even in the end, even if there is a day of judgement I have no excuse for my choices. Therefore, I exercise free will despite God's foreknowledge. If I didn't then I would not be accountable for the consequences of my choices because it would not be me making the choice.



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 05-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I fully understand what Rust is saying. He is saying that foreknowledge voids free will. He is saying that we can either have free will and no God or a God that is not all knowing or there is no God. Nowhere is there any room for the possibilty in his response for the existence of both.

His argument holds a great amount of credence if there is no God or God isn't what He claims to be.

The problem is God claims to be all knowing and He claims He has predestined us but to be honest - I can not find the words "free will" in the bible. So, in fact Rust may be right after all - an all knowing God predestines us to Heaven or Hell and free will is just an illusion.

I might concede to this thought but, I still have a choice to make - do I follow God or not? Thus by having this very choice shows that even in the end, even if there is a day of judgement I have no excuse for my choices. Therefore, I exercise free will despite God's foreknowledge. If I didn't then I would not be accountable for the consequences of my choices because it would not be me making the choice.

But in God's eyes, He gave us free will just so we WOULD be held accountable for these choices. We, as humans can choose whether or not to follow His way, and have to answer for our choices in the end. When He created us in His image, He gave us our conscience, our love for one another, and our uniqueness among the rest of His creations. It's up to us whether or not to follow Him, He tells us so in the Bible. So if we refuse to do what He tells us, even though He knows which ones will ultimately turn away, it is not His hand that does it. So He punishes us for not listening.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I fully understand what Rust is saying. He is saying that foreknowledge voids free will. He is saying that we can either have free will and a God that is not all knowing or there is no God. Nowhere is there any room for the possibilty in his response for the existence of both.

It is because the existence of both contradict each other.

How about this: For breakfast tomorrow I'll drink either coffee or tea. Right now I think I'll have tea. If I had free will, I would be able to change my mind. Even up to the point at which I fix breakfast tomorrow, I can change my mind. At this point, while I feel it likely I'll be drinking tea, I cannot say with 100% certainty that I will drink tea tomorrow morning.

Now if god gave me free will, guess what? He doesn't know with 100% certainty what I will drink tomorrow either! Say god is all-knowing, and he knows that I will have coffee tomorrow morning. Then in the morning, I smell the coffee beans and decide to have coffee, I didn't really decide anything. It was completely out of my control. The fact that I 'changed my mind' from tea to coffee is an illusion. Just as all the idea that all sins of man would be their own decisions, made on their own free will, is an illusion.

If god knows the future, the future is written, and cannot be changed. If it is changed in the future, than the act of changing the future is foreknown, and therefore, it is unchangeable. You cannot know the future and change it, or allow anyone else to change it (as them changing it would also be foreknown).

quote:His argument holds a great amount of credence if there is no God or God isn't what He claims to be.

The problem is God claims to be all knowing and He claims He has predestined us but, to be honest - I can not find the words "free will" in regards to a birth right in the bible.

So, in fact Rust may be right after all - an all knowing God predestines us to Heaven or Hell and free will is just an illusion.

I might concede to this thought but, ironically I still have a choice to make - do I follow God or not?

Thus by having this very choice shows that even in the end, even if there is a day of judgement I have no excuse for my choices. Therefore, I exercise free will despite God's foreknowledge. If I didn't then I would not be accountable for the consequences of my choices because it would not be me making the choice.

Actually, if you concede that there is no free will, then you do not even have a choice as to whether you accept god or not. For instance, if god knows everything, he knows at the exact moment you were born (even before you were born) where your eternal soul would end up. An all-knowing being can never give the answer "I don't know" to any given question (lest the aren't truly "all-knowing"). So god either knows at the point of your creation whether you would end up in heaven or hell, or he doesn't know. If he does know, you're eternity (and your "choice to accept him") is all predestined. If he doesn't know, he's not omniscient.

So what if he is truly omniscient and free will is an illusion? What does this mean? It means:

1) People aren't truly guilty for their sins. When they sin, they are acting in accordance with the foreknowledge of god knowing they would sin which cannot be changed. The people play no part in it.

2) God creates people solely for the reason to send them to hell.

3) God sends billions of people to eternal torture for leisure.

If god is all-knowing, he is a sadistic son-of-a-bitch. Might doesn't make right, and I would find it morally reprehensible to worship such a cruel being.

God is above all reprehension, for He is infallible.

Creating beings that can sin, and knowing they can sin, does not remove their own responsibilities. Though He knew that the fruit would get eaten in the Garden of Eden, it was still through human choice that it found its way to our lips. If He had never presented us with the CHALLENGE of not eating from the Tree, we would be robots, only doing what we were programmed to do. By creating and presenting the Tree, He presented a choice: to either obey Him or disobey Him. They could do anything they wanted to do in Eden, yet they chose to do the one thing they were told NOT to. God forced them to make that choice, knowing what they would choose. Their choice is the cause of all the suffering, evil, sickness, and death that has come since.

quote:God forced them to make that choice, knowing what they would choose.

Forcing someone to make a choice and knowing what decision they will make takes away their right to choose, because if they choose contrary to what you forsee, you are wrong.

To foresee an event mandates that it must happen, lest you be wrong. Therefore, if god foresees a person going to hell when their soul is created (which he must foresee the future of everything and every being to be truly all-knowing), he mandates the sinful actions and decisions made by that person.

There is no free-will involved.

And who the fuck says god is infallible?!

You don't just declare a being infallible. They must prove that they are infallible through their actions and decisions. The fact that "god" felt remorse and regret that he created mankind (Read Genesis 6:6-7) before he flooded the earth. God said "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

God sat their with sadness in his heart that man (his creation) ever became so wicked. Did god not see this coming?!

And I extend that to the fact that god feels infinite punishment for finite crime is fair and just. That heaven is nothing more than masses of people submitting their wills (and their identities as individual people) to the "supreme will of god". It's not even a reward! The only good thing about heaven is the lack of torture!

Saying god is "above all reprehension" just because he is "all-powerful" or because "he says so" is detestable, and shows what weak will and low virtue a person really has, someone willing to bow down to whoever happens to be in control. How...pathetic. If god wants my love and praise and worship, he's going to have to prove to me that he deserves it. He can start by proving he exists in the first place. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

God forced them to make that choice, knowing what they would choose.

Forcing someone to make a choice and knowing what decision they will make takes away their right to choose, because if they choose contrary to what you forsee, you are wrong.

To foresee an event mandates that it must happen, lest you be wrong. Therefore, if god foresees a person going to hell when their soul is created (which he must foresee the future of everything and every being to be truly all-knowing), he mandates the sinful actions and decisions made by that person.

There is no free-will involved.

And who the fuck says god is infallible?!

You don't just declare a being infallible. They must prove that they are infallible through their actions and decisions. The fact that "god" felt remorse and regret that he created mankind (Read Genesis 6:6-7) before he flooded the earth. God said "I will destroy man whom I have created from the face of the earth; both man, and beast, and the creeping thing, and the fowls of the air; for it repenteth me that I have made them."

God sat their with sadness in his heart that man (his creation) ever became so wicked. Did god not see this coming?!

And I extend that to the fact that god feels infinite punishment for finite crime is fair and just. That heaven is nothing more than masses of people submitting their wills (and their identities as individual people) to the "supreme will of god". It's not even a reward! The only good thing about heaven is the lack of torture!

Saying god is "above all reprehension" just because he is "all-powerful" or because "he says so" is detestable, and shows what weak will and low virtue a person really has, someone willing to bow down to whoever happens to be in control. How...pathetic. If god wants my love and praise and worship, he's going to have to prove to me that he deserves it. He can start by proving he exists in the first place. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)



But God had to put the choice out there: obey Him, or not. Knowing what they would ultimately do does not take away their right of choice, it just removes the "surprise" aspect of it. Of course forseeing means that the event must happen; like duh. But did He make her eat the fruit? Did he flip a switch in her head in order to fulfill what He "knew" was going to happen? No. Man chose to disobey God of his own free will.

God is infallible because the Bible says so. "Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and His greatness is unsearchable." The original language of "unsearchable" incorporated the thought of it not being possible to enumerate, impossible to imagine, unfathomable. If God made mistakes, his greatness could be quantified as having been one who made one mistake; it wouldn't have been "unsearchable."

And while God declares that He has found His creation evil and regrets making such a thing, He never says that he will destroy all of Man. The next verse, "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" shows that we weren't a failure. For Jesus came through Noah's son, Shem. When the word "repent" is used of God, it means grief, consolation, and action taken thereupon. Yes, God felt grief and suffering on our behalf, but this isn't a sign of an error, weakness, or regret of mistake. Rather, it shows strength and love on behalf of another. It shows action taken by God to counteract our mistakes, our sins. He doesn't change His mind about Man and destroy us all, because it was not all of us who were sinful.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



So, in fact Rust may be right after all - an all knowing God predestines us to Heaven or Hell and free will is just an illusion.

I might concede to this thought but, ironically I still have a choice to make - do I follow God or not?

No. If you concede you have no free will, then you have no free will to make that choice either.

My argument is either completely correct, or completely incorrect. There is no middle ground for you to accept it as valid... but still have the ability to choose to follow god or not.

The fact remains that we would have no free will to deviate from the future already outlined by the god's foreknowledge.

quote:

Thus by having this very choice shows that even in the end, even if there is a day of judgement I have no excuse for my choices. Therefore, I exercise free will despite God's foreknowledge. If I didn't then I would not be accountable for the consequences of my choices because it would not be me making the choice.

You don't have free will, that's the problem. You just said you had the choice, without proving anything, and without refuting the problem that has been in front of your face since the beginning.

If he knows the future, then the future cannot change, and therefore, when the time comes, I cannot choose to do something else that deviates from that future he has already outlined with his knowledge. That includes not being able to choose to follow him or not.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

But God had to put the choice out there: obey Him, or not. Knowing what they would ultimately do does not take away their right of choice, it just removes the "surprise" aspect of it. Of course forseeing means that the event must happen; like duh. But did He make her eat the fruit? Did he flip a switch in her head in order to fulfill what He "knew" was going to happen? No. Man chose to disobey God of his own free will.

1. You ignore that the god would know this before he created. That means, he created us while knowing full well what we would do. If he still created me, knowing full well that I would not have a belief in him, then if he sentence me to hell, he is an disgusting being, worthy of absolutely no praise.

Pretty much every single code of ethics and morality would consider that being a abomination; save conviniently for the people who are desperately trying to prove his existence...

2. Also, the fact remains that his knowledge would have predestined Adam and Eve to eat the apple, since they could not possibly change their mind, and choose to not eat it. So he didn't have to "flip a switch" as they already had to eat the apple - without a shadow of a doubt, they had to eat it.

quote:

God is infallible because the Bible says so. "Great is the LORD, and greatly to be praised; and His greatness is unsearchable." The original language of "unsearchable" incorporated the thought of it not being possible to enumerate, impossible to imagine, unfathomable. If God made mistakes, his greatness could be quantified as having been one who made one mistake; it wouldn't have been "unsearchable."

Which is circular logic. You cannot put any weight on what the bible says, without first proving the existence of the omnipotent and omniscient god that supposedly inspired it; you must first prove his existence and his qualities, and then put weight on what the bible says. If not, tha is circular logic.

quote:

And while God declares that He has found His creation evil and regrets making such a thing, He never says that he will destroy all of Man. The next verse, "But Noah found grace in the eyes of the LORD" shows that we weren't a failure. For Jesus came through Noah's son, Shem. When the word "repent" is used of God, it means grief, consolation, and action taken thereupon. Yes, God felt grief and suffering on our behalf, but this isn't a sign of an error, weakness, or regret of mistake. Rather, it shows strength and love on behalf of another. It shows action taken by God to counteract our mistakes, our sins. He doesn't change His mind about Man and destroy us all, because it was not all of us who were sinful.

That changes absolutely nothing. The facts stipulated above, still stand. If he knew full well what we would do, before he even created us, then to sentence us to eternal suffering is an extremly vile action, one worthy of contempt.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-07-2006).]

Merlinman, you seem to support the idea of the 2 'wills' of god proposed by calvanism: the first 'will' being that god has predestined all those who will go to heaven through his sovereign grace; the second that he intends to save those who "freely choose" to have faith in him.

They rationalize the two in about the same way you do. The fact remains that these two wills contradict each other. You, and many others, are so heavily indoctrinated (brainwashed) that you can't see this, and nobody can point out this contradiction to you until you summon the desire to start asking questions instead of blindly accepting and repeating contradictions that have been preached and followed for centuries.

[This message has been edited by Elephantitis Man (edited 05-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Merlinman, you seem to support the idea of the 2 'wills' of god proposed by calvanism: the first 'will' being that god has predestined all those who will go to heaven through his sovereign grace; the second that he intends to save those who "freely choose" to have faith in him.

They rationalize the two in about the same way you do. The fact remains that these two wills contradict each other. You, and many others, are so heavily indoctrinated (brainwashed) that you can't see this, and nobody can point out this contradiction to you until you summon the desire to start asking questions instead of blindly accepting and repeating contradictions that have been preached and followed for centuries.







I'm not brainwashed, because I don't believe in God at all. I'm only presenting the facts as if He were real, not stating my opinion about it.

And how do those two beliefs contradict each other, anyway? God hasn't predestined anybody, rather, they are predistined anyway. He doesn't go "I'm gonna make YOU a believer, YOU an atheist, YOU a believer..." Their final resting place was written as soon as creation was, but it's also their life to live, their choice to make, their path to follow. Those who choose to have Faith do CHOOSE to. It doesn't matter that He knows, just that they've made the choice themselves, and are therefore worthy of Salvation.

Now that you know I'm an atheist (which I've mentioned before, but I guess not in this thread), is there still something that needs to be pointed out to me?

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

1. You ignore that the god would know this before he created. That means, he created us while knowing full well what we would do. If he still created me, knowing full well that I would not have a belief in him, then if he sentence me to hell, he is an disgusting being, worthy of absolutely no praise.

What was He supposed to do, genetically engineer belief into us, so we wouldn't have a choice? If He never would've put us (Man) in the position to choose whether or not to obey Him, He would be an unfair god, only giving us what He wants us to have, and not letting us make our own choices. You choose not to believe in Him (hey are you atheist or agnostic, BTW?), though you know He needs you to if you wanna go to Heaven, so He won't let you join Him. He created us for His pleasure, therefore He can do whatever He wants with us. That's the sucky part about Him being the Creator. No matter unfair He would make us live, He still has ultimate say in what happens after you die.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



2. Also, the fact remains that his knowledge would have predestined Adam and Eve to eat the apple, since they could not possibly change their mind, and choose to not eat it. So he didn't have to "flip a switch" as they already had to eat the apple - without a shadow of a doubt, they had to eat it.



The only reason they HAD to eat it is because they CHOSE to, and it was this choice that was known to God always. He didn't write it so they would eat it, He told them NOT to eat it. But after talking to Satan, Eve decided that she would do what God told her not to do. It was going to happen, yeah, but only because she was going to do it.

If she would have decided to not eat it, then she wouldn't have, and it would have been THIS knowledge that God would always have had. Also, if Adam had decided along with her to keep it forbidden, then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in (this convo, not present day situations, let's keep it small). It would always have been known that they would refuse temptation. And they would have had to refuse temptation, as you say. And (please) no talk about "But God KNEW they would eat it, so if they never would have eaten it He'd be wrong." This is the beginning of a new movie, one where He KNOWS that they won't eat it.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:



Which is circular logic. You cannot put any weight on what the bible says, without first proving the existence of the omnipotent and omniscient god that supposedly inspired it; you must first prove his existence and his qualities, and then put weight on what the bible says. If not, tha is circular logic.



Yeah... I know.

But... the Bible is the inspired word of God. Through His divination, the Book is infallible, and should be thought of as such (by believers). If the Bible contains errors, then the whole belief crumbles, for it need to be inerrant. This inerrant book, inspired by our Creator, tells us that God's perfect, so it must be true.

((BTW, once again, yeah, it's circular logic, but to one with faith, there's nothing wrong with it. And I apologize for my earlier statement, "God is above all reprehension, for He is infallible." You can still attack the guy's morals, I don't know what I was talking about. But I stand behind trying to defend His infallibility.))



quote:Originally posted by Rust:



That changes absolutely nothing. The facts stipulated above, still stand. If he knew full well what we would do, before he even created us, then to sentence us to eternal suffering is an extremly vile action, one worthy of contempt.





Yeah, but He makes the rules. We choose not to follow. He can do whatever He wants. Like I said, He created us for His pleasure. He doesn't need us for Himself, or need us to be happy here on Earth, or in the afterlife.

Yeah, I'd hate him too.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

I'm not brainwashed, because I don't believe in God at all. I'm only presenting the facts as if He were real, not stating my opinion about it.

And how do those two beliefs contradict each other, anyway? God hasn't predestined anybody, rather, they are predistined anyway. He doesn't go "I'm gonna make YOU a believer, YOU an atheist, YOU a believer..." Their final resting place was written as soon as creation was, but it's also their life to live, their choice to make, their path to follow. Those who choose to have Faith do CHOOSE to. It doesn't matter that He knows, just that they've made the choice themselves, and are therefore worthy of Salvation.

Now that you know I'm an atheist (which I've mentioned before, but I guess not in this thread), is there still something that needs to be pointed out to me?

Hahaha. You're an atheist playing devil's advocate. I still don't understand how you can't see the contradiction.

"God hasn't predestined anybody, rather, they are predistined anyway. "

You say they are predestined anyway...who predestined them?! If god predestined them, then that contradicts the first part of that statement!

Are you joking with me? This is the first time I've ever seen an atheist so...oblivious. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

And I must ask...why oh why do you capitalize 'god' and 'he' when referring to god if you don't believe in him? http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

What was He supposed to do, genetically engineer belief into us, so we wouldn't have a choice? If He never would've put us (Man) in the position to choose whether or not to obey Him, He would be an unfair god, only giving us what He wants us to have, and not letting us make our own choices. You choose not to believe in Him (hey are you atheist or agnostic, BTW?), though you know He needs you to if you wanna go to Heaven, so He won't let you join Him. He created us for His pleasure, therefore He can do whatever He wants with us. That's the sucky part about Him being the Creator. No matter unfair He would make us live, He still has ultimate say in what happens after you die.

He could have never created us in the first place, and therefore never sentenced us to suffer eternal damnation. The fact that he deliberately chose to do so, means that he is a despicable being; hence my point.

That's even if I assume we do in fact get to make a choice, which I don't agree with at all.

quote:The only reason they HAD to eat it is because they CHOSE to, and it was this choice that was known to God always. He didn't write it so they would eat it, He told them NOT to eat it. But after talking to Satan, Eve decided that she would do what God told her not to do. It was going to happen, yeah, but only because she was going to do it.

If she would have decided to not eat it, then she wouldn't have, and it would have been THIS knowledge that God would always have had. Also, if Adam had decided along with her to keep it forbidden, then we wouldn't be in the mess we're in (this convo, not present day situations, let's keep it small). It would always have been known that they would refuse temptation. And they would have had to refuse temptation, as you say. And (please) no talk about "But God KNEW they would eat it, so if they never would have eaten it He'd be wrong." This is the beginning of a new movie, one where He KNOWS that they won't eat it.

When did Eve chose to eat the apple? Before she even existed? How could she make such a choice if she didn't exist? She couldn't. Your point only stands if you believe the "future Eve" (one which actually didn't exist) "chose" to eat the apple. Is this what you believe? I disagree, but I want you to say if that's what you're arguing before I reply.

quote:Yeah... I know.

But... the Bible is the inspired word of God. Through His divination, the Book is infallible, and should be thought of as such (by believers). If the Bible contains errors, then the whole belief crumbles, for it need to be inerrant. This inerrant book, inspired by our Creator, tells us that God's perfect, so it must be true.

((BTW, once again, yeah, it's circular logic, but to one with faith, there's nothing wrong with it. And I apologize for my earlier statement, "God is above all reprehension, for He is infallible." You can still attack the guy's morals, I don't know what I was talking about. But I stand behind trying to defend His infallibility.))



Whether the believer thinks that circular logic is fine is irrelevant. In fact, they would be dishonestly believing so. If they truly believed circular logic was fine, then there would be no debate because they would have already lost it - and they would be forced to accept it. I could say, with the use of circular logic, that god presented himself to me and told me that I was correct. When you ask for proof, I will say that everything I say is correct because god chose to present himself to me (which is circular). Thus completely refuting their argument if they accept circular logic as a valid form of reasoning.

The fact is that whether they accept circular logic or not is irrelevant to determining if doing so is wrong. Either you accept that you were wrong in using circular logic to claim that the god is infallible, or you admit that you were wrong in the whole debate (as proven by the circular argument I gave above).



quote:Yeah, but He makes the rules. We choose not to follow. He can do whatever He wants. Like I said, He created us for His pleasure. He doesn't need us for Himself, or need us to be happy here on Earth, or in the afterlife.

Yeah, I'd hate him too.

Great, then we agree that he would be an abhorrent creature worthy of no respect and praise. How is that supportive of Christianity at all? The praise of a being which is despicable, is despicable itself as well.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-07-2006).]

Rust, if I was a chick, I would totally hunt you down and rape you. http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/wink.gif)

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Hahaha. You're an atheist playing devil's advocate. I still don't understand how you can't see the contradiction.

"God hasn't predestined anybody, rather, they are predistined anyway. "

You say they are predestined anyway...who predestined them?! If god predestined them, then that contradicts the first part of that statement!

Are you joking with me? This is the first time I've ever seen an atheist so...oblivious. http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/tongue.gif)

And I must ask...why oh why do you capitalize 'god' and 'he' when referring to god if you don't believe in him? http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/confused.gif)



With the creations of their souls, even before this, their destiny was written. Their choices were written. God knew where they'd go, what they'd do. That doesn't mean He sent them there. He didn't make this one good and this one bad, they did that themselves. They were predestined, but He didn't choose their path for them. Do you see what I mean?



And I capitalize God because that's His name, like Bob or Stan. I don't capitalize the word when only referring to a deity, like "worshipping a god" or "your god says this." I capitalize Him out of habit, and just think it should be capitalized, dunno. Doesn't matter that I don't believe in him. Eh.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

[B]When did Eve chose to eat the apple? Before she even existed? How could she make such a choice if she didn't exist? She couldn't. Your point only stands if you believe the "future Eve" (one which actually didn't exist) "chose" to eat the apple. Is this what you believe? I disagree, but I want you to say if that's what you're arguing before I reply.[B]



I was using your saying that they had to eat it "without a shadow of a doubt" because that's what God knew. I was saying that yeah, He knew it (hence, "it was going to happen, yeah") because she was going to do it and it was already "set in stone". But only because she was going to make that choice.

And (if we're not done with this, IDK) Eve chose to eat the fruit after talking to Satan, when she decided that God's rule could go broken. God knew it was gonna happen, and this rule-breaking was a result of the Tree being the Test. But once again, this Test was needed.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

[B]

Whether the believer thinks that circular logic is fine is irrelevant. In fact, they would be dishonestly believing so. If they truly believed circular logic was fine, then there would be no debate because they would have already lost it - and they would be forced to accept it. I could say, with the use of circular logic, that god presented himself to me and told me that I was correct. When you ask for proof, I will say that everything I say is correct because god chose to present himself to me (which is circular). Thus completely refuting their argument if they accept circular logic as a valid form of reasoning.

[B]



But you are human, and subject to error. You can change. The Bible is not and cannot. It is not a person telling you what to do, it is a book with the "Breath of God." It will always contain the same "truth" in it, no matter what. I guess, if you were telling the truth, you would no longer be able to lie, as a result of your newfound infallibility.

But I am not going to retract the "evidence" that I gave. The "infallible" document describes an infallible being (but their infallibilities are only recognized by those who have faith in Him and His Word, of course). That's why faith is stressed so much in religion; you need to have that much trust in the Book and what it contains.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

[B] Great, then we agree that he would be an abhorrent creature worthy of no respect and praise. How is that supportive of Christianity at all? The praise of a being which is despicable, is despicable itself as well.

[B]

Uh... 'cause I don't needta support and praise Him? He sucks.

*Does a little dance*

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

I was using your saying that they had to eat it "without a shadow of a doubt" because that's what God knew. I was saying that yeah, He knew it (hence, "it was going to happen, yeah") because she was going to do it and it was already "set in stone". But only because she was going to make that choice.

And (if we're not done with this, IDK) Eve chose to eat the fruit after talking to Satan, when she decided that God's rule could go broken. God knew it was gonna happen, and this rule-breaking was a result of the Tree being the Test. But once again, this Test was needed.

You cannot say that "she was going to do it" if she doesn't already lack a free will; if she had free will, you cannot know what "she was going to do"! That's the nexus of my question.

For your point to make any sense, Eve would have to have decided to eat the apple before she even existed, since it has already been established that at the time of the Garden of Eve (after creation) she had no choice other than to eat the apple, because foreknowledge of that action already existed.

Either there she had no choice at all at that point in time, and hence my point stands completely, or you argue that there was a choice before Eve that point in time. Hence, my question: Are you saying that before the creation of the universe the "future Eve" chose to eat the apple, and therefore "she" "chose" to do so?

quote:

But you are human, and subject to error. You can change. The Bible is not and cannot. It is not a person telling you what to do, it is a book with the "Breath of God." It will always contain the same "truth" in it, no matter what. I guess, if you were telling the truth, you would no longer be able to lie, as a result of your newfound infallibility.

But I am not going to retract the "evidence" that I gave. The "infallible" document describes an infallible being (but their infallibilities are only recognized by those who have faith in Him and His Word, of course). That's why faith is stressed so much in religion; you need to have that much trust in the Book and what it contains.

You are deliberately ignoring what I said. Whether they have faith in their statments and the bible is irrelevant in determing whether what they are saying is valid.

You cannot say that the bible is infallible because doing so would be circular logic. Thus, you cannot say that the bible is not subject to error because doing so would illogical and not at all valid. Only if you accept circular logic as a valid form of reasoning would that statement of yours (and theirs) hold any weight, in which case I have already refuted you by the argument I already stated: God presented himself to me and told me that I was correct and that you were wrong (a circular argument - circuar arguments being valid in this case if that were your position).

So again: Either you accept that you were wrong in using circular logic to argue that the bible is infallible, or you accept circular logic as a valid form of reasoning and therefore, admit that you are wrong by the argument I gave above. Which one is it?

quote:Uh... 'cause I don't needta support and praise Him? He sucks.

*Does a little dance*

You are arguing a certain position. Your argument would mean that the god is a vile one (as he deliberately chooses to sentence us to an eternal damnation), not worthy of praise (which apparently you agree with), hence it would be an argument against Christianity or whatever religion you are arguing in favor of. That's my point. Whether you yourself (i.e. the supposedly atheist Merlinman) believes he would be abhorrent, is not what I am arguing, I'm arguing against your self-refuting position.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You cannot say that "she was going to do it" if she doesn't already lack a free will; if she had free will, you cannot know what "she was going to do"! That's the nexus of my question.

For your point to make any sense, Eve would have to have decided to eat the apple before she even existed, since it has already been established that at the time of the Garden of Eve (after creation) she had no choice other than to eat the apple, because foreknowledge of that action already existed.

Either there she had no choice at all at that point in time, and hence my point stands completely, or you argue that there was a choice before Eve that point in time. Hence, my question: Are you saying that before the creation of the universe the "future Eve" chose to eat the apple, and therefore "she" "chose" to do so?



No, I was not saying that she chose before she even existed, I was saying the choice was known before she existed. By God. He knew that she was going to choose to eat.

When you say that she had no choice other than to eat the fruit, it means that !hey! she eats the fruit. Not that she was forced to. She is still responsible for her choice, no matter when anybody knew about it.



quote:Originally posted by Rust:



You are deliberately ignoring what I said. Whether they have faith in their statments and the bible is irrelevant in determing whether what they are saying is valid.

You cannot say that the bible is infallible because doing so would be circular logic. Thus, you cannot say that the bible is not subject to error because doing so would illogical and not at all valid. Only if you accept circular logic as a valid form of reasoning would that statement of yours (and theirs) hold any weight, in which case I have already refuted you by the argument I already stated: God presented himself to me and told me that I was correct and that you were wrong (a circular argument - circuar arguments being valid in this case if that were your position).

So again: Either you accept that you were wrong in using circular logic to argue that the bible is infallible, or you accept circular logic as a valid form of reasoning and therefore, admit that you are wrong by the argument I gave above. Which one is it?



Of course it matters when discussing their validity. These people put their souls and hearts into this belief. You want a kind of validity that they cannot give, absolute proof of God. And your example did not truly refute my circular logic, because you are still a human, and God hasn't spoken to people in like forever. The Bible contains prophecies of future events (future in the Bible) that were written before the fact. Prophetic proof.

Hmm. Yes. I am wrong in using circular logic, but only because faith is needed in such things. Your argument of God coming to you doesn't come close to comparing the Bible and Him.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You are arguing a certain position. Your argument would mean that the god is a vile one (as he deliberately chooses to sentence us to an eternal damnation), not worthy of praise (which apparently you agree with), hence it would be an argument against Christianity or whatever religion you are arguing in favor of. That's my point. Whether you yourself (i.e. the supposedly atheist Merlinman) believes he would be abhorrent, is not what I am arguing, I'm arguing against your self-refuting position.

AAAH! WHAt? What position am I arguing? That people have responsibility for their actions, and He holds them accountable as such. His "choice" of our damnation stems from our choice of turning away from Him. If you praise Him, and inspire others to as well, you won't have to worry about being damned. The "believer" (not me not me) says that He cannot be hated for this. You're getting you're just rewards and should've tried while you still had breath in your body.

(((BTW, I don't know how much more time I'll have on this computer. My roomate gets up soon, and'll want it back. But I'll be back on here as soon as possible, you can trust me on that, dude.

*makes rushing gesture*)))

Hehehe...I think you're full of shit, Merlin.

I think you are a 'believer'.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

No, I was not saying that she chose before she even existed, I was saying the choice was known before she existed. By God. He knew that she was going to choose to eat.

When you say that she had no choice other than to eat the fruit, it means that !hey! she eats the fruit. Not that she was forced to. She is still responsible for her choice, no matter when anybody knew about it.

If she had no other choice than to eat the apple, then it wasn't a choice to begin with! Choice means she has the ability to choose another outcome, which is quite simply false, given that no other outcome was possible. She made no choice, she simply had to follow the already determined future.

That's not a choice by any reasonable definition of the word.

quote:Of course it matters when discussing their validity. These people put their souls and hearts into this belief. You want a kind of validity that they cannot give, absolute proof of God. And your example did not truly refute my circular logic, because you are still a human, and God hasn't spoken to people in like forever. The Bible contains prophecies of future events (future in the Bible) that were written before the fact. Prophetic proof.

Hmm. Yes. I am wrong in using circular logic, but only because faith is needed in such things. Your argument of God coming to you doesn't come close to comparing the Bible and Him.

If I were to say that 2+2 = 17, would that be a valid argument simply because I "put my heart into that belief"? Absolutely not. Again, whether they put their hearts in to their beliefs is irrelevant in determing if their argument in favor of those beliefs are valid. If they have deluded themselves into beleiving ciruclar logic is a valid form of reasoning, then that is their problem, certainly not mine.

The fact remains that saying that the Christian god is infallible simply becuase the bible says so, is not a valid argument. As such, you yourself were incorrect in using the bible as evidence of god's infallibility. The point stands.

quote:AAAH! WHAt? What position am I arguing? That people have responsibility for their actions, and He holds them accountable as such. His "choice" of our damnation stems from our choice of turning away from Him. If you praise Him, and inspire others to as well, you won't have to worry about being damned. The "believer" (not me not me) says that He cannot be hated for this. You're getting you're just rewards and should've tried while you still had breath in your body.

You keep ignoring what I say...

Your argument would entail a god which is vile, and not worhty of praise. Hence, your argument (which amounts to a pro-Christian one) is self-refuting. That's what I am trying to get across.

Hence why I said:

"Your argument... would be an argument against Christianity or whatever religion you are arguing in favor of. [because it would entail the praise of a vile being which sentences us to suffer eternally]".

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Elephantitis Man:

Hehehe...I think you're full of shit, Merlin.

I think you are a 'believer'.

Le no. It's just that I read alot.

And had to use knowledge of the Bible against Christians who didn't even know it that well.

Eve made the choice. God said "Don't eat from this tree." Satan said "Do it." Eve went "Ok." That's choosing.

If Eve had said no, like I was saying earlier, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because throughout all of time, her answer would have been no. But she chose yes. It is a choice. It was known beforehand, predetermined, as you define it, but was still HER choice.

And it's not deluding yourself into believing circular logic. It's the fact that they have such faith in the teachings. So how would you have someone prove that God (a being who hasn't even been proven to EXIST)is infallible? The only next course would be to say that He is not. Then if He isn't the Bible might be flawed also... along with its teachings, parables, and statements. Everything crumbles. So God's infallibility can only be proven by using the Bible and what it contains.

And what am I ignoring? You claim He is not worthy of praise, yet since He created you and the rest of EXISTENCE, He feels that He should be glorified. My arguments never called Him vile (though [I] did say a negatuve word or two). That's your opinion of His manner.

And it's not in favor of xtianity, or any religion. I'm just saying what the Bible says, and what its god says. Not saying He exists or that it's actually infallible.

I believe this argument has been beat to death. Merlin, continuing this debate is futile.

My shit still stands, dude. I just haven't gotten it to *click* with Rust. There's still a couple things we needta settle, I think.

FUCKIN' EDIT: Gotta go, roomate wants his 'puter. I'll be readin' the posts sometime today with my cell phone, but won't be able to use his computer again until (hopefully) tonight. I'm not done yet.

[This message has been edited by Merlinman2005 (edited 05-07-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

...If Eve had said no, like I was saying earlier, then we wouldn't be having this conversation, because throughout all of time, her answer would have been no. But she chose yes. It is a choice. It was known beforehand, predetermined, as you define it, but was still HER choice.

If Eve had said no then the omniscience of God would have been refuted, unless He knew in advance that she would choose No.



If the outcome is predetermined,it follows that any and all choices resulting in said outcome would by necessity be predetermined also. Thus, no free will.

quote:Originally posted by Merlinman2005:

Eve made the choice. God said "Don't eat from this tree." Satan said "Do it." Eve went "Ok." That's choosing.

It's not choosing if that's the only thing that could have been possibly done. If god had foreknowledge of the future, then only that which he knew would happen could have possibly happened. When Eve was in the garden, there was only one thing that could have possibly happened, and that is that she could only eat the apple. That's not a choice.

quote:

If Eve had said no, like I was saying earlier, then we wouldn't be having this conversation...

She couldn't have said no, that's the whole point!

quote:

And it's not deluding yourself into believing circular logic. It's the fact that they have such faith in the teachings. So how would you have someone prove that God (a being who hasn't even been proven to EXIST)is infallible? The fact still remains The only next course would be to say that He is not. Then if He isn't the Bible might be flawed also... along with its teachings, parables, and statements. Everything crumbles. So God's infallibility can only be proven by using the Bible and what it contains.

Why is that a question that I, an atheist, must answer? That's not a shortcoming of my beliefs, that's a shortcoming in their beliefs. It is not my problem that they have put themselves in that position; how they go about proving that their god is infallible and that he exists, is not something that I have to worry about, but something they have to worry about.

So no, the question cannot be "answered" with the bible, because it is not a logically valid answer to begin with; they've just deluded themselves into believing that it is, which again, is their problem, not mine.

quote:

And what am I ignoring? You claim He is not worthy of praise, yet since He created you and the rest of EXISTENCE, He feels that He should be glorified. My arguments never called Him vile (though did say a negatuve word or two). That's your opinion of His manner.

You said:

"Yeah, I'd hate him too" and "He sucks". That's in response to me calling him vile. Hence my point(that's what you keep ignoring). "What the bible says" ends up being an argument against Christianity, because Christianity ends up being the reverence of a vile being.

If you aren't calling him vile, then you're doing an atrocious job at that.

quote:

And it's not in favor of xtianity, or any religion. I'm just saying what the Bible says, and what its god says. Not saying He exists or that it's actually infallible.

Saying what the Christian bible says is a Christian position.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-07-2006).]

Merlin is going around in circles.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

You don't have free will, that's the problem.

I certainly do have choices that I freely make. There is nothing barring me from doing anything in this world. All choices are mine to make. Nobody is making them for me. I may be influenced by a lot of things but the choice is ultimatly mine to make.

I don't understand how you can contest with this reality?



quote:

You just said you had the choice, without proving anything, and without refuting the problem that has been in front of your face since the beginning.

How do I prove I just made a choice of my own free will?

quote:

If he knows the future, then the future cannot change, and therefore, when the time comes, I cannot choose to do something else that deviates from that future he has already outlined with his knowledge.

I don't believe you understand biblical predestination at all. I've tried to explain it but you didn't accept it. It has nothing to do with the journey but everything to do with the outcome. So I will try once again.

You are trying to understand the eternally spiritual with the temporal by applying only temporal logic with the presumption there is no eternal or spiritual in the equation. Your assumption is; all parts of the equation are temporal. This is false and misleading.

Once the eternaly spiritual meets the corruptable temporal then what is predestined can change. The world and all that is in it are fallable.

I will give another analogy on the issue -

consider, a toy maker has an idea to create a toy. He plans on mass producing and then marketing his toy throughout all toy stores.

The plans are drawn, the manufacturing process begins and the toy is created. During the manufacturing, the first thing it gets is an intelligent freewill to accept or reject it's inner workings.

It goes through a quality assurance process to make sure the toy is free of defect. All attempts are made to correct the defects but unless the toy accepts the corrections by it's free will it remains imperfected. So after the QA process it is allowed to go through packaging and then sent out to the various toy stores to do what it was intended to do.

OK? How does this apply?

God concieved the idea to create mankind with a purpose. Which is to eventually be with Him in Heaven to worship Him and fellowship with Him. All of us were created for this purpose. This is what is meant by predestination. It is the original plans.

We were then put on this earth which, in this analogy, is the manufacturing process. It isn't until the end of this life are we completed. TO BE CLEAR ON THIS - ALL of us are undergoing the "manufacturing process" until the day we die. None of us will be completed until the very end. We are still going through the creation process, each and everyone of us.

Though, there are many checks and balances and all things are recorded along the way it isn't until the end do we know our fate. We then go through the QA process which we can call judgment day.

Because of the very nature of fallability in temporal things, all of us have imperfections and impurities. That is because, during the manufacturing process there are errors and flaws caused by the cause and effect of free will gifted to us at conception.

Nobody has the attributes of perfection we were designed for. This is caused by free-will. The only way to get out from this condition is to accept the correction given to us by God. This is what Jesus was sent to us for. To lead us to the place of correction and perfection. Those who chose to follow Him will recieve the seal saying they we have what we were predestined for.

Predestination does not mean all things are controlled and dictated to us - it just means there is a plan for us when we were conceived. Because of the issue of free-will and the corruptable temporal world, we are all flawed and not all of us meet the expectations of predestination. In fact all of us fall short of meeting them.

It is only through accepting our faults and humbly let God work in us to correct these faults do we obtain what we were orginally created for. To worship God.

God has a keen eye on every single one of us as we go through this creation process and He knows before judgement day, who accepts correction and who rejects it.

The "lambs book of life" is still being written as those of us come to Him. Although we are all predestined, by our own free-will we choose to accept Him or reject Him and thus sealing our own fate.

Does God know all and see all? Yes. Does God dictate and control our thoughts and actions? No. Therefore, predestination is just the original concept - the sin of Adam and Eve changed the original plan and corrupted the entire process. Thus free will exists and effects what we were orignially created and predestined for.

Not all of us will return to the original plan.

Does this mean that God can not know before hand who will make it to the end? Not at all. God created every stitch and sinew in our being. He knows all of our inner workings and how we are wired. He knows how we will react and decide on all things. Because He knows how we will decide doesn't mean it voids our free will.

If a programmer creates a program, he knows how it works inside and out. When there is a bug in the program, he will also know how it works against the original concept of the program. Eventually the program goes into production with the bugs and anomolies are reported. This is the condition of fallability despite the intended purpose.

Our lives are full of anomilies due to free will. They oppose the original concept of our purpose. There is only one way to correct it and that is to accept the corrections and change course. This is what it means to be born-again spiritually.



What I am showing is the biblical definition of predestination. This is how free-will and predestination can coexist. The bottom line, it is your understanding of predestination that is flawed.





[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 05-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I don't believe you understand predestination at all. I've tried to explain it but you didn't except it. It has nothing to do with the journey but everything to do with the outcome. So I will try once again.

Obviously, it is you who has no grasp on the definition of predestination. It is rediculous to assert that the journey is not predestined. How can you not fathom the fact that for God to be omniscient, he would know everything in advance. Thus each and every step along the way to the final outcome is predestined as well. The choices are set in stone. Free will cannot exist with omniscience.

quote:I will give another analogy on the issue -

consider, a toy maker has an idea to create a toy. He plans on mass producing and then marketing his toy throughout all toy stores.

The plans are drawn, the manufacturing process begins and the toy is created. During the manufacturing, the first thing it gets is an intelligent freewill to accept or reject it's inner workings.

It goes through a quality assurance process to make sure the toy is free of defect. All attempts are made to correct the defects but unless the toy accepts the corrections by it's free will it remains imperfected. So after the QA process it is allowed to go through packaging and then sent out to the various toy stores to do what it was intended to do.

OK? How does this apply?

God concieved the idea to create mankind with a purpose. That is to eventually be with Him in Heaven to worship and fellowship with Him. All of us were created for this purpose. This is what is meant by predestination.

Very poorly thought out analogy. The toy maker is not omniscient. He cannot see the future. He cannot know what will come of his creations.

quote:We were put on this earth which, in this analogy, is the manufacturing process. It isn't until the end of this life are we completed. TO BE CLEAR ON THIS - ALL of us are undergoing the "manufacturing process" until the day we die. None of us will be completed until the very end. We are still being created, each and everyone of us.

Though, there are many checks and balances and all things are recorded along the way it isn't until the end do we know our fate. We then go through the QA process which we can call judgment day.

An omniscient God would have known from the beginning of creation every step of the process, all the way through to the end.Your analogy is seriously lacking in logic.

quote:Because of the very nature of fallability in temporal things all of us have imperfections and impurities. That is because, during the manufacturing process there are errors and flaws caused by the cause and effect of free will gifted to us at conception.

Nobody has the attributes of perfection we were designed for. This is caused by free-will. The only way to get out from this condition is to accept the correction given to us by God. This is what Jesus was sent to us for. To lead us to the place of correction and perfection. Those who chose to follow Him will recieve the golden seal saying they have what we were predestined for.

If the Creator were in fact perfect, the creation would have no flaws. Unless intentionally created with the flaws .

quote:

Predestination does not mean all things are controlled and dictated to us - it just means there is a plan for us when we were conceived. Because of the issue of free-will and the corruptable temporal world we are all flawed and not all of us meet the expectations of predestination. In fact all of us fall short of meeting them. It is only through accepting our faults and humbly let God work in us to correct these faults do we obtain what we were orginally created for. To worship God.

God has a keen eye on every single one of through this creation process and knows ahead of time who accepts correction and who rejects it. The "lambs book of life" is still being written as those of us come to Him. Although we are all predestined by our own free-will we choose to accept Him or reject Him and thus sealing our own fate.



Wrong again. Predestination means that the future is set in stone and cannot, by any means, be altered in any way.

quote:This is how free-will and predestination can coexist. The bottom line, it is your understanding of predestination that is flawed.

The bottom line is that you do not understand the concept of predestination.













[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 05-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I certainly do have choices that I freely make. There is nothing barring me from doing anything in this world. All choices are mine to make. Nobody is making them for me. I may be influenced by a lot of things but the choice is ultimatly mine to make.

I don't understand how you can contest with this reality?



We've already covered this, you're now dishonestly repeating yourself.

It seems that you have free will, but the fact that it may seem you have free will, may have been predetermined in the first place, hence you cannot claim that simply because it seems that way, it must be that way.

quote:How do I prove I just made a choice of my own free will?

By making an argument, which has the only possible conclusion of free-will existing. You've failed miserably in doing so, as it is obvious you don't understand what logic is in the first place, let alone have the ability to make a cogent logical argument that can stand up to scrutiny.

quote:I don't believe you understand biblical predestination at all. I've tried to explain it but you didn't accept it. It has nothing to do with the journey but everything to do with the outcome. So I will try once again.

No, I understand what you are saying just fine; I also understand that you keep ignoring the problem at hand.

You keep ignoring that if he is omniscient, then he has foreknowledge of every outcome before that outcome happens. Nothing can deviate from that foreknowledge, hence we lack a free will to choose anything that deviates from the future.

Existence would be like a movie; it doesn't magically change after it is first seen, it remains the same. As soon as someone possesses foreknowledge of the future, he has seen the "movie" of the future, and therefor, the actors within it (us) possess no free will to deviate in order to change what happens in the movie. Every single action, from beginning to end, must remain the same.

Now please, stop wasting everybody's time with your blatant ignorance of the subject at hand. These concepts obviously fly way over your head.



[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-08-2006).]

You didn't even try to understand it. Maybe take more time with it.

If you want to define and translate what the bible means by using human principles then great.

You will continue to miss these basic concepts.

The only way to understand it is to see it from God's perspective. In fact it is God that is defining pre-destination here. Not Webster.

You are debating a biblical point - so the only way to understand the problem is to understand the source. Whether you believe the bible is true or not doesn't matter. This is how "pre-destination" is portrayed in the bible.

If it is only by webster you go by to understand the world then that is another thing.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

You didn't even try to understand it. Maybe take more time with it.

I most certainly did. Stop dishonestly accusing me please.

quote:

The only way to understand it is to see it from God's perspective. In fact it is God that is defining pre-destination here. Not Webster.

You are debating a biblical point - so the only way to understand the problem is to understand the source. Whether you believe the bible is true or not doesn't matter. This is how "pre-destination" is portrayed in the bible.

Wrong. This debate existed long before the bible did, and has continued to exist long after the bible came about.

There is absoltuely nothing biblical in the argument (it obviously has repercussions in theology - but there is nothing inherently theological about it), because it would apply to secular foreknowledge as well. As long as something (anything, be it a god, an animal, a human being, a ghost, or an evil alien) has foreknowledge of the future, then the point still stands.

That you still don't understand this simple concept, after having been told this numerous times, by numerous different individuals, in numerous different places, should be proof enough to anyone that you are quite simply ignorant of what is being discussed.

[This message has been edited by Rust (edited 05-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

No, I understand what you are saying just fine; I also understand that you keep ignoring the problem at hand.

It's not me that is ignoring things here. I have provided the answer. You are the one that is ignoring it.

quote:

You keep ignoring that if he is omniscient, then he has foreknowledge of every outcome before that outcome happens.

I can only ask you take more time with what I wrote. I explained it well I believe.

Take an engine for example - all the inner workings of an engine have a pre-determined outcome - in a perfect world it will always produce power and never fail. This is how it was designed. However, introduce imperfections to how the engine is built and then the chances of failure are imminent. It will no longer perform as designed.

What I am saying is God created us perfectly. The world created imperfection and now the pre-destination is challenged.

An engineer can look at an engine and determine the outcome of a flawed part - if the wrong gauge of wire is used and power exceeds the ability of the wire, the engineer can know exactly when the wire fails.

The flaw in life is free will - it challenges perfection as perfection is defined as what our original purpose is. To serve God. Since we can choose to serve or not to serve our pre-destined place of fellowship with God is challenged. He knows this because He knows our faults. Since He engineered us so He can also determine the outcome. Again, because He knows how we work doesn't change our choices.

quote:

Nothing can deviate from that foreknowledge, hence we lack a free will to choose anything that deviates from the future.



That is if we can only use your definitions - which I have stated before - If we are sorting out spiritual issues concerning the bible then we have to use the bible to understand them. Whether you believe in the bible or not doesn't change the issue and how it is portrayed in the bible.

quote:

Existence would be like a movie; it doesn't magically change after it is first seen, it remains the same.

This is why I don't think you took the time to really read what I wrote. We are not in some cosmic VCR playing out a pre-recorded event. This is where you start going wrong in understanding the issue.

quote:

As soon as someone possesses foreknowledge of the future, he has seen the "movie" of the future, and therefor, the actors within it (us) possess no free will to deviate in order to change what happens in the movie. Every single action, from beginning to end, must remain the same.

I understand your point but, it doesn't apply to what I presented. We are living and making history in real time. We are forming our character every day. We are growing and dieing. After imperfection (sin) was introduced to this process (life) - NONE OF US can ever achieve what we were predestined for. Therefore, we control, by choice, what our destiny will be. God has set the conditions and set it all into play. He has marked a day where time will end and no more chances will be given.

His knowledge of the inner workings of man has no bearing what so ever on the outcome of our choices.

quote:

Now please, stop wasting everybody's time with your blatant ignorance of the subject at hand. These concepts obviously fly way over your head.



[/B][/QUOTE]

If only I had a choir to preach to as well.



I really think you should take a closer look at what was written. However, I see that you are not looking for an answer but are just hoping your view prevails despite all attempts to explain the problem.

If you would like I could provide the scirptures that support everything that I'm saying.

You have to understand that pre-destination as defined in the bible is not the definition you are using.

Foreknowledge doesn't mean intervention

Free-will determines the outcome.

Because God created it, He knows how it will fail and when it will fail. He knows that through correction during the creation process it will prevail. We only have one choice to make in this life that has any kind of merrit.

We are not on some cosmic VCR playing out a script. The concept is much deeper then you understand.

Oh my god. Give it up, interest, you stubborn, ignorant idiot.

quote:Originally posted by Rust:

Wrong. This debate existed long before the bible did, and has continued to exist long after the bible came about.

There is absoltuely nothing biblical in the argument (it obviously has repercussions in theology - but there is nothing inherently theological about it), because it would apply to secular foreknowledge as well. As long as something (anything, be it a god, an animal, a human being, a ghost, or an evil alien) has foreknowledge of the future, then the point still stands.

That you still don't understand this simple concept, after having been told this numerous times, by numerous different individuals, in numerous different places, should be proof enough to anyone that you are quite simply ignorant of what is being discussed.



I fully understand it. Like I said many times already.

Free will can not exist with prior knowledge of the event - I get it! It makes great science fiction for sure....but it has nothing to do with God or God's claim of knowing all things.

The issue is your definitions are not accurate depictions of biblical content. It is not a "simple" thing.

Can you see that I am not jumping on the bandwagon because the principles of the concept do not match between the biblical account and the account you are defending?

If we are talking about God then what will be the greater authority on the matter? The bible or you?

quote:Originally posted by Adrenochrome:

Oh my god. Give it up, interest, you stubborn, ignorant idiot.

Accusations are faulty and unwise - so that those who accuse are generally guilty of the same offence.

I can't give up- there is to much at stake.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

I can't give up- there is to much at stake.

If you intend to continue, perhaps you should attempt to present a valid argument to support your position. As of yet, you have provided nothing but illogical assertions and flawed analogies.

Don't beat yourself up for failing to defend your position successfully though. You are trying to defend a position for which a sound defense does not exist.

quote:Originally posted by truckfixr:

If you intend to continue, perhaps you should attempt to present a valid argument to support your position. As of yet, you have provided nothing but illogical assertions and flawed analogies.

Don't beat yourself up for failing to defend your position successfully though. You are trying to defend a position for which a sound defense does not exist.



Well then, here's another analogy; I can do this all week if I have to -

Lets say you are planning a road trip out of town. You are going to the next city over. The trip is 50 miles and you plan on being there in about an hour. Doing so, you have pre-destined the outcome with having a plan. The destination was planned prior to leaving for the trip. (This is how the word is portrayed in the the biblical view.)

However, the events that occur between the time you leave and the time you arrive can greatly influence if you even arrive at all. So- free will and a predestined plan can coexist. they are independent of each other. Just because there is a plan doesn't effect the journey to get there or the choices made in between.

Get it?

You have to at least agree that this represents reality? I hope....

Now, if somewhere it was written that you were going to be making the trip and all events surrounding it were pre-determined then it would be a different story. Your actions have been pre-determined, thus neagating your free will.

It's a very subtle difference but enough to see that none of us have a pre-determined outcome to our lives. Free-will prevents this from happening.

What you are argueing really is pre-determination and free-will can not co-exist and that I agree with. However, this is not the biblical claim.

The claim is pre-determination and free-will coexist because of the conditions set by the accounts of the bible. I've outlined it enough so I'll just be brief here.

We were predestined - created perfectly for that destination - events occured that created free-will which threw us off that course - we decide if we are going to follow God or not and get back on that course.

We decide on our own destiny and fate.

It is not "pre-determined" as Rust and yourself claim in error.

The bible doesn't say our lives are pre-determined by an all-knowing God and you're incorrect in assuming it does say this.

Rust has created a straw-man arguement and he is the one that needs to accept he is in error on this -



[This message has been edited by Interest (edited 05-08-2006).]

quote:Originally posted by Interest:



The bible doesn't say our lives are pre-determined by an all-knowing God and you're incorrect in assuming it does say this.

Rust has created a straw-man arguement and he is the one that needs to accept he is in error on this -



The bible doesn't have to say it, that's the whole fucking point. What we are debating is the consequences of foreknowledge regardless of who has it - an omniscient being undoutebly has foreknowledge, and thus we are arriving at what that means for free will.

Since an omniscient being has foreknowledge, then an omniscient being refutes free will. Whether your bible says otherwise, is quite simply irrelevant since as long as god is described as omniscient, the fact still stands.

So, no, I'm most certainly not creating a strawman, you are simply being extraordinarily ignorant.

Now, please, stop wasting you breath, because I'm not going to waste my time replying to someone who wilfully ingores the arguments at hand.

quote:Originally posted by Interest:

...Now, if somewhere it was written that you were going to be making the trip and all events surrounding it were pre-determined then it would be a different story. Your actions have been pre-determined, thus neagating your free will...

Here is where your argument utterly falls apart. If God is omniscient , then ALL EVENTS ARE PREDETERMINED. So you are left with two possibilities. 1) God is omniscient and free will is an illusion. 2) Free will exists and God is not Omniscient.



[This message has been edited by truckfixr (edited 05-08-2006).]

Interest, I've provided a handy logical proof for you that I believe captures the essence of the free-will argument

1. an omniscient being exists.

2. an omniscient being would have knowledge of all events, past, present and future.

3. Free-will exists

4. free-will necessitates the ability to choose an outcome, without the chosen outcome being foreknown.

5. An omniscient being would be aware of the outcome of every event.

6.There cannot be an omniscient being and free-will. (from 5,4)

If this is a straw-man let me know rust.