If God supposedly created everything, then he is the one who is directly responsible for creating your problems.

Let me guess before Iget a new asshole tor for me, there is a verse somewhere that I missed about this very subject.

God gave you free will,

You chose what you do, therefor you create your own problems.

Call whatever you like a "problem", but know this, God does not make mistakes. Everything that happens, does so for a reason.

Everything that happens, does so for a reason.

Yeah... I think he covered that in his first post... "is directly responsible for creating your problems"

Call whatever you like a "problem", but know this, God does not make mistakes. Everything that happens, does so for a reason.

Completely false, imo. Too wishy-washy if you try and come up with a reason.

A kid I knew once, who had no friends, died recently.

His mom is in a wheel chair and his dad was unsupportive, and no one at school even gave him the time of day, on the good days. On the bad days he was made fun of. He had Crohn's disease and stuff.

He died out of the blue of an aneurysm before he turned 17.

this could go either way for a 'reason'..

1.) Nature does not pick favorites. He died because he had a faulty body and that's it.
2.) He died to teach everyone a valuable lesson.. to treat others with respect or you'll feel guilty when he died.
OR he died to be spared of a miserable life.

Overall, seeing as "God has a plan" I don't think it's fair that he died. I cannot see where the plan is in this.

But I don't know why I'm entertaining this idea at all because I definitely do not believe in God.

Completely false, imo. Too wishy-washy if you try and come up with a reason.

A kid I knew once, who had no friends, died recently.

His mom is in a wheel chair and his dad was unsupportive, and no one at school even gave him the time of day, on the good days. On the bad days he was made fun of. He had Crohn's disease and stuff.

He died out of the blue of an aneurysm before he turned 17.

this could go either way for a 'reason'..

1.) Nature does not pick favorites. He died because he had a faulty body and that's it.
2.) He died to teach everyone a valuable lesson.. to treat others with respect or you'll feel guilty when he died.
OR he died to be spared of a miserable life.

Overall, seeing as "God has a plan" I don't think it's fair that he died. I cannot see where the plan is in this.

But I don't know why I'm entertaining this idea at all because I definitely do not believe in God.


I'm not going to sit here and type up incredibly hypothetical reasons as to how this fits into God's plan. All I am going to say is that it is impossible for us to know what the kid (or his parents or others etc.) learned in this lifetime and how it will affect everyone in the next.

Yeah... I think he covered that in his first post... "is directly responsible for creating your problems"

Only "problemed" people would view gifts of God as such.

Overcoming problems is what makes us grow.

Overcoming problems is what makes us grow.

Quoted For Truth

God gave you free will,

You chose what you do, therefor you create your own problems.
But God has a plan, so either you have free will and he does not have a plan, or he has a plan and is still directly responsible for all of your problems.

Overcoming problems is what makes us grow.

Yes! Rapists are great motivational speakers. They are gurus.

I should only be so lucky as to be raped in the ass by a total stranger.

Only "problemed" people would view gifts of God as such.

Which has what to do with what I said?

I was pointing out how "everything happens for a reason" isn't a valid reply to someone who just told, albeit indirectly, you that it happens for a reason.

I believe that God is the source of all, including things you may deem undesirable. God is all.

But I also believe that your reactions to all things (reactions like suffering, enjoyment), even undesirable things, are completely within your control.

I believe that God is the source of all, including things you may deem undesirable. God is all.

But I also believe that your reactions to all things (reactions like suffering, enjoyment), even undesirable things, are completely within your control.
But what about God's plan?

But what about God's plan?

What about it?

What about it?
God has a plan, so no matter what you do you end up following it either way. It doesn't matter how you react to things.

God has a plan, so no matter what you do you end up following it either way. It doesn't matter how you react to things.

So what?

So what?
It's in God's plan for you to react a certain way, so no matter what you do it's according to God's plan, so you don't have the free will to react how you want.

It's in God's plan for you to react a certain way, so no matter what you do it's according to God's plan, so you don't have the free will to react how you want.

Why does that matter? :confused:

Although I disagree. I believe we do have freewill, and that all possibilities exist at once.

Yes! Rapists are great motivational speakers. They are gurus.

I should only be so lucky as to be raped in the ass by a total stranger.

I have no idea what you mean.

What's not to understand?

Beany: "Overcoming problems is what makes us grow."

Me: "Yes! Rapists are great motivational speakers. They are gurus.

I should only be so lucky as to be raped in the ass by a total stranger. "

If you didn't understand the sarcasm, I'm pointing out how "overcoming problems is what makes us grow" is a ridiculous statement to make when it doesn't refute the matter at hand, which includes a long list of preventable problems that don't necessarily make us grow, or that do make us grow but other, betters things, could have made us grow even more.


In short: The remote possibility that someone somewhere might "grow" out of the experience of rape, isn't some sort of magical excuse that refutes the matter in the OP.

If you didn't understand the sarcasm

Sarcasm huh... I might have known it was in someway a demeaning post coming from you. Why are you so often unable to keep it civilised? Because you are uncivilised, that's why.




In short: The remote possibility that someone somewhere might "grow" out of the experience of rape, isn't some sort of magical excuse that refutes the matter in the OP.

I wasn't attempting to refute anything. I was showing how god providing problems isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And as far as your rape issue is concerned...... oh fuck it, evolve a tad and you might be able to figure it out yourself.

Sarcasm huh... I might have known it was in someway a demeaning post coming from you. Why are you so often unable to keep it civilised? Because you are uncivilised, that's why.


Huh? Sarcasm is uncivilized and demeaning? What's calling me uncivilized and saying that I was demeaning when I said absolutely nothing bad of you, then? Lying? Exaggeration? Dishonesty?

I said absolutely nothing demeaning. I said, through sarcasm, that rape isn't a thing that usually provides something good in the end, and thus that you had failed in showing what you were trying to show. If you find someone explaining to you how you are wrong demeaning, then you really need to grow a pair of balls because it seems you're a twelve year old girl. Now that is the demeaning. See the difference?

I wasn't attempting to refute anything. I was showing how god providing problems isn't necessarily a bad thing.

And as far as your rape issue is concerned...... Yet that's precisely what you didn't show!

Me growing from a problem doesn't magically "show" how it isn't a bad thing. It, at best, shows that some good might come from the bad.

Much like if you go ahead and kill your whole family and find a pair of socks you were looking for in the process. Yes a little "good" came out of killing your family (you find that nice pair of socks that was lost) but you still killed your fucking family.

oh fuck it, evolve a tad and you might be able to figure it out yourself.Let me guess, that's you being civilized?

If you can't see why then we really have a problem.

Well, apparently we do. I don't see how sarcasm is demeaning at all, and the fact you've only deemed it so without any explanations says to me that you yourself can't even justify that allegation.

Please, could you explain to me what's so demeaning about sarcasm? I would imagine giving an explanation for your accusations is the civilized way to act, is it not?



I didn't spell it out so a 6 year old could understand if that's what you mean.

I beg to differ. Your point was quite understandable, by people of almost all ages; it just failed at showing what you intended.

Is deleting posts before people can respond to them the civilized, "evolved", way to act?

Is deleting posts before people can respond to them the civilized, "evolved", way to act?

Grow up. You're continuing to show how immature you are.
I deleted it for my own reasons, end of story.
I have no more time for you.

Grow up. You're continuing to show how immature you are. I deleted it for my own reasons, end of story. I have no more time for you.

I'm not being immature, I'm pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of you accusing me of being demeaning and uncivilized when you in turn act in precisely that manner!

Like it or not, the mature and "civilized" thing to do would be to let the post in its place, or at least warn the person that you're going to delete it. It is definitely not to delete it without warning or explanation.

Could I have ignored this? Yes, but sadly your unfortunate personal insults don't inspire much forgiveness in other people. You apparently hold me to some extremely high standards (so high that it seems even "sarcasm" is suddenly demeaning) all the while you get a free ride on your accusations and your immature actions. That doesn't seem very fair to me.

P.S. I like how the guy who was just a few minutes ago whining about a sarcastic remark on the internet gets to tell other people to "grow up". Classic.

But God has a plan, so either you have free will and he does not have a plan, or he has a plan and is still directly responsible for all of your problems.


God doesn't have a plan. remember, on the 7th day he rested......

Therefore It is up to everyone else, and people can do what ever, no one ever said that there wasn't an 8th day or that the week starts over...


EAT THAT

But God has a plan, so either you have free will and he does not have a plan, or he has a plan and is still directly responsible for all of your problems.

God has a plan, but ultimately it is up to you to choose to follow this path. Chances are it'll make your life much easier if you do.

God has a plan, but ultimately it is up to you to choose to follow this path. Chances are it'll make your life much easier if you do.

That means God is not omnipotent.

I believe the term "God's plan" is being used differently by different people in this thread.

I do not believe God would need to make a 'plan', as that would indicate that God is bound to a time line. I believe that 'time' would be a part of God, not the other way around.

When I say God's plan, I mean it pretty much the same way as what I mean when I say God. The collective all.

If God supposedly created everything, then he is the one who is directly responsible for creating your problems.

Let me guess before I get a new asshole tor for me, there is a verse somewhere that I missed about this very subject.

Well while I would disagree if you think God is that way than yes he created all the problems of the world. Remember The Gnostic Christians message, God did not create any of this directly. I am not here to proselytize this religion, but rather to show that God is not the Dogma of Mainstream Christianity.

I do believe the demiurgical saying you are referring to was:

"I form the light and create darkness,
I bring prosperity and create disaster;
I, the LORD, do all these things." (Isaiah 45:7)

I don't believe anyways, so mankind is the source of my problems...

That means God is not omnipotent.

Why would a loving God force you to do anything?

But God has a plan, so either you have free will and he does not have a plan, or he has a plan and is still directly responsible for all of your problems.

Quoted for sophism.

Verily is it written--"I am God, thou art God, all that groks is God." God is infinite, therefore God IS everything--or rather the underlying spiritual force/intelligence/information field that supports and sponsors material reality.

To put it more simply, free will is an essential part of God's plan, which was basically to set it all up and let'er rip. Whatever happens is a result of our thoughts and actions--we all create our own reality even as we experience it. A key part of this is the law of attraction, which states that we attract what we think about--a corollary of which is that we attract what we fear, and push away what we want.

It's in God's plan for you to react a certain way, so no matter what you do it's according to God's plan, so you don't have the free will to react how you want.

FYI, the above is a sort of garbled and over-simplified restating of the doctrine of predestination, which is, IMHO, totally bogus.

FYI, the above is a sort of garbled and over-simplified restating of the doctrine of predestination, which is, IMHO, totally bogus.
But this is all about scripture, so what you think is bogus is completely irrelevant. I'm just helping to point out the omniscient/omnipotent paradox.

But this is all about scripture, so what you think is bogus is completely irrelevant. I'm just helping to point out the omniscient/omnipotent paradox.

Heh, Arms is hardly a man of "scripture."

... the omniscient/omnipotent paradox.

Which seems to only apply when God is bound to a line of time.

Why do you believe God must be bound to a time line?

Which seems to only apply when God is bound to a line of time.

That's not true. It applies if we are bound to a line of time.

Whether god isn't bound to one or not is irrelevant if he knows our future before it happens.

Whether god isn't bound to one or not is irrelevant if he knows our future before it happens.

Then please explain to me the omniscient/omnipotent paradox. I don't see how it is paradoxical unless God is limited by time as well.

Well really it depends what he (and now you) mean by "omniscience/omnipotence" paradox. There are so many that use one or both of those characteristics.

For example, one could ask whether god could pose himself a question so difficult that even he himself wouldn't know the answer to it.

That doesn't depend on being "bound to a time line".

However, the one I was referring to was the paradox of omniscience and free will (i.e. theological fatalism). People often try to dismiss the paradox (Aquinas famously gave this as a solution) by saying that the god isn't "bound to a time line" but that doesn't really solve anything.

Well really it depends what he (and now you) mean by "omniscience/omnipotence" paradox. There are so many that use one or both of those characteristics.

For example, one could ask whether god could pose himself a question so difficult that even he himself wouldn't know the answer to it.

That doesn't depend on being "bound to a time line".

God is the question and the answer.

Infinitely everything. Certainty and uncertainty included.


And to pose a question and wonder about it does imply a time line.

However, the one I was referring to was the paradox of omniscience and free will (i.e. theological fatalism). People often try to dismiss the paradox (Aquinas famously gave this as a solution) by saying that the god isn't "bound to a time line" but that doesn't really solve anything.

You still haven't actually told me why a God not limited by a time line is still paradoxical.

God is the question and the answer.

Infinitely everything. Certainty and uncertainty included.


And to pose a question and wonder about it does imply a time line.



You still haven't actually told me why a God not limited by a time line is still paradoxical.
Obbe, you and your cop outs :rolleyes:

Do you think god is everything, and do you also think he is perfect?

Cop-out of what exactly?

Look who's speaking. Is there one, or two of my posts that you haven't responded to in this thread?

Do you think god is everything?

As one.

and do you also think he is perfect?

Whats perfect?

God is the question and the answer.

Infinitely everything. Certainty and uncertainty included.

So you have no actual reply then? Awesome.


And to pose a question and wonder about it does imply a time line.

Who said differently? I specifically said:

" It applies if we are bound to a line of time.

Whether god isn't bound to one or not is irrelevant if he knows our future before it happens. "

Which already implies a "time line".

Either you aren't reading things adequately before you reply, or you knew this and decided to make an irrelevant comment anyway. Which is it?



You still haven't actually told me why a God not limited by a time line is still paradoxical.

Well to be fair, you haven't told my why it isn't and you made the claim first. Not to mention that I already told you the argument: theological fatalism.

Do you want me to explain theological fatalism to you?

Cop-out of what exactly?

Look who's speaking. Is there one, or two of my posts that you haven't responded to in this thread?



As one.



Whats perfect?
Rust has the right idea, take it up with him. He can say it better then I can.

So you have no actual reply then? Awesome.

You just quoted my reply.

Who said differently? I specifically said:

" It applies if we are bound to a line of time.

Whether god isn't bound to one or not is irrelevant if he knows our future before it happens. "

Which already implies a "time line".

A time line for us, yes, and that God may or may not have one, it is apparently irrelevant (why, you have yet to explain).

You also later said:

"... god could pose himself a question ..."

And "... That doesn't depend on being "bound to a time line" ..."

But God questioning something does imply that God is 'thinking' along a line of time.

Which is what I was talking about.

Well to be fair, you haven't told my why it isn't and you made the claim first.

I believe that God is all, including all and any 'moment' of time. I believe all exists at once.

I believe while we percieve ourself moving "straight and forward" along a line of time, we are actually twisting and turning in more complex dimensions.

I believe that just like 1st dimensional lines can branch off to other lines along the 2nd dimensional plane, I believe our 4th dimensional line of time can branch off along a 5th dimensional plane.

It is our freewill to make different decisions, which consequently determine what we expereince from our limited perspective. I believe from wider perspectives, we would see that all decisions are being made, making up the 5th dimensional plane. In this way God still knows all, and we still have free will. God "knows" what decisions you will make, because on another level, all decisions are being made.

I believe this all because I am completely illogical.

Not to mention that I already told you the argument: theological fatalism.

Do you want me to explain theological fatalism to you?

It certainly would be nice if you had just done it in the first place. Don't bother now.

Although, I would still like you to explain how a God not bound to a time line still makes this a paradox, since the God used in theological fatalism clearly is.

You just quoted my reply.

I quoted you saying something, but not actually replying to the problem.

Like me saying "dog piss bubble gum car shoe" wouldn't be an "actual reply" to this post of yours.



But God questioning something does imply that God is 'thinking' along a line of time.

Which is what I was talking about.

"God is the question and the answer." does imply that God is bound to (or at least works within) a time line.

In this way God still knows all, and we still have free will. God "knows" what decisions you will make, because on another level, all decisions are being made


1. What you "believe" doesn't solve the problem at hand. Many atheists don't believe god exists, so have they shown that he doesn't or proven all the paradoxes that imply non-existence correct? No. Their beliefs aren't a proof or a solution of the question of god or any paradoxes therein.

2. Even if we ignore the above, your rambling doesn't justify your claim. You still didn't show how we would have free will. You just said we would.

For you to justify free will within the problem of theological fatalism, you would have to show a flaw in the premises of the argument. You haven't done so in any meaningful way. For example, we could "fix" the argument with trivial solutions, like this one which takes restates the argument in a "timeless" manner. We could do it regarding however many "dimensions" you pull out of your ass:

"(1t) God timelessly knows T.
(2t) If E is in the timeless realm, then it is now-necessary that E.
(3t) It is now-necessary that T.
(4) Necessarily, if God timelessly knows T, then T. [Definition of “infallibility”]
(5) If p is now-necessary, and necessarily (p → q), then q is now-necessary. [Transfer of Necessity Principle]
(6) So it is now-necessary that T. [3,4,5]
(7) If it is now-necessary that T, then you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [Definition of “necessary”]
(8) Therefore, you cannot do otherwise than answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am. [6, 7]
(9) If you cannot do otherwise when you do an act, you do not act freely. [Principle of Alternate Possibilities]
(10) Therefore, when you answer the telephone tomorrow at 9 am, you will not do it freely. [8, 9] "

-- Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy.


Although, I would still like you to explain how a God not bound to a time line still makes this a paradox, since the God used in theological fatalism clearly is.

1. I specifically said that the issue would be irrelevant - as in, we don't need to concern ourselves with the issue of god being bound to time or not.

We don't need to concern ourselves because the paradox stands just fine without delving into whether god is timeless or not.

Today is Tuesday. I will have to make at least one choice on Saturday. The choice will be between X1, X2, X3, ... Xn... If I can say today with certainty that god knows all of my choices in my time line, then I cannot make any choices which deviate from that which god knows. I will lack the free will to deviate on Saturday.

There. Any references to time given are regarding my time line, not god's. The only reference to god is that of his omniscience, which is given as a premise of this argument. The only way this reasoning would necessitate that I talk about god's time line is if one were automatically implied with the characteristic of omniscience, and if that were the case then the rebuttal of "that only applies when God is bound to a line of time" would make little sense.


2. If you believe that the "God used in theological fatalism clearly is [bound to a time line]" then your objections are rendered meaningless! You are changing the topic by arguing a god that isn't (if we take what you say as true).

I quoted you saying something, but not actually replying to the problem.

No, that is my reply to the problem.

Much like how I would answer the "Can God make a rock so big, not even he can lift it?" question. God is the rock.

You don't agree? Thats fine with me. Don't agree then.

You don't think I've proven anything? Alright. I'm not trying to.

"God is the question and the answer." does imply that God is bound to (or at least works within) a time line.

No, I don't think it does. I think that implies a line of time for whoever might be wondering such a thing about God.

I personally do not believe God is bound to a line of time, but rather that all lines of time are bound to God.

1. What you "believe" doesn't solve the problem at hand. Many atheists don't believe god exists, so have they shown that he doesn't or proven all the paradoxes that imply non-existence correct? No. Their beliefs aren't a proof or a solution of the question of god or any paradoxes therein.

As someone who believes he cannot actually know anything, proving my belief in God to other people is not something I am concerned with.

I understand that atheists have not proven there is no God. Why you bother to tell me this, I'm not sure.

If proof is such an important part of this discussion, then perhaps Flaky (or yourself) should have given your reasons why you (or he) believe a God should be bound to a line of time, and why even a God not bound by time would still create a freewill/omniscience paradox, in the first place.

"What I believe" is exactly that. A fucking belief. Don't agree with it? Thats fine with me.

We could do it regarding however many "dimensions" you pull out of your ass:

I don't think I can follow all that. Maybe if you dumbed it down to my sorry level, it might be able seep into my thick skull a little better.

I found this on wiki for theological fatalism:

1. God is omniscient.
2. Since God is omniscient, God has infallible foreknowledge.
3. If God has infallible foreknowledge that tomorrow you will engage in event X, then you must invariably engage in event X.
4. You must invariably engage in event X.

To me, this seems to imply God is bound to the same time line as us, waiting for the future to slide into the past. It also seems to imply that there is only one such line of time as well.

Use the first dimension to imagine time:

We can think of time as a line, it has been expressed this way many times. You know that no matter how long we make the line, there are an infinitude of 'points' running along it. Every one of these points is a spot where this first dimensional line has the potential to branch off into other first dimensional lines along the second dimensional plane. These lines too are all made up of an infinitude of 'points'.

The second dimensional plane, which has only length and width, can be however large we want it to be as well. But, just like the first dimensional lines are made up of infinitudes of non-dimensional 'points', the second dimensional plane is made up of an infinitude of first dimensional lines. The width is an infinitude of lengths all next to each other.

Now then, imagine "time" as a line. There are an infinitude of moments along this line. At any given moment, I can decide to do something which may alter the course of my line of time, and send me down a different one.

Like the second dimension is to the first dimension, imagine there being a dimension higher then "time". A plane made up of an infinitude of time lines. At this dimension, all the choices you could have ever possibly made have been made.

God/All/Reality/however you want to think of it 'knows' what you are going to do before you do it, because everything you could possible decide already exists at that level. We maintain freewill, because I can choose between x and y. I can choose the next bend my fourth dimensional line takes through the fifth dimensional plane.

Don't think I've proven anything? Good, because I'm not trying to.

Don't agree with it? Oh well.

... the paradox stands just fine without delving into whether god is timeless or not.

Today is Tuesday. I will have to make at least one choice on Saturday. The choice will be between X1, X2, X3, ... Xn... If I can say today with certainty that god knows all of my choices in my time line, then I cannot make any choices which deviate from that which god knows. I will lack the free will to deviate on Saturday.

Well wait, how far are we defining freewill? As in, I can will myself to suddenly fly around the room if I wanted? I don't think so.

God 'knows' all the different possible time lines along the "time line plane" that you could turn on to from your current moment of time. At that level, all those choices have been made. Is it a restriction that you cannot choose something which is not available from your current position? Sure, but you certainly appear to be able to choose from those which are available. I would call that freewill.

2. If you believe that the "God used in theological fatalism clearly is [bound to a time line]" then your objections are rendered meaningless! You are changing the topic by arguing a god that isn't (if we take what you say as true).

How is that changing the topic? Stating that I believe the premise (or what I believe to be the premise, God bound to a line of time) is something different is changing the topic?

No, that is my reply to the problem.

No, you wrote something but it doesn't answer anything; it was an illogical statement, much like "dog piss bubble gum car shoe".


No, I don't think it does. I think that implies a line of time for whoever might be wondering such a thing about God.

Except reality doesn't really care what you "think". You make a question and it is then answered. Whether you want to accept it or not is immaterial, just as 2+2 = 4 remains true no matter if you believe it or not.


As someone who believes he cannot actually know anything, proving my belief in God to other people is not something I am concerned with.

Except that is just a convenient cover for your bullshit since in this very thread you failed to live up to your silly Solipsist facade by making a claim of fact as to whether theological fatalism can be solved if a god isn't bound to a timeline.

You didn't say " I think X is true". You said "X is true". Either follow your own bullshit consistently or don't follow it at all.



If proof is such an important part of this discussion, then perhaps Flaky (or yourself) should have given your reasons why you (or he) believe a God should be bound to a line of time, and why even a God not bound by time would still create a freewill/omniscience paradox, in the first place.

1. I've already done that.

2. You've already accepted that the god of theological fatalism is bound to a timeline, thus removing any necessity of me "proving" that in the first place.


I don't think I can follow all that. Maybe if you dumbed it down to my sorry level, it might be able seep into my thick skull a little better.

Sure: "You're wrong as we can restate the argument for theological fatalism to cover your unsubstantiated, unproven, ideas regarding multiple dimensions. Thus, even if you were right regarding the multiple dimensions, you still wouldn't have shown how theological fatalism isn't a problem".

Does that help you? Or was your request just your childish attempt at evading the argument?


Don't think I've proven anything? Good, because I'm not trying to.


Oh, you've made that quite clear. You haven't proven a single thing of the things you've claimed. You're only trying to pass of your bullshit as fact but as soon as someone questions it you hide in this dishonest facade of "just expressing your belief" when in reality you did more than that, you asserted things as true; you made claims.


Well wait, how far are we defining freewill? As in, I can will myself to suddenly fly around the room if I wanted? I don't think so.

God 'knows' all the different possible time lines along the "time line plane" that you could turn on to from your current moment of time. At that level, all those choices have been made. Is it a restriction that you cannot choose something which is not available from your current position?.

Yet a "time line plane" where I cannot make any choice other than what's already set in stone is called determinism not free will. Free will, by definition already implies the ability of me making a conscious decisions between various choices. If there are no other choices (the reason why is unimportant) there is no free will.


How is that changing the topic? Stating that I believe the premise (or what I believe to be the premise, God bound to a line of time) is something different is changing the topic?

Of course. Follow the discussion please. You said that the paradox Flaky was talking about only applied when God was bound to a timeline. I said it didn't. If you agree that the god of theological fatalism is bound to a timeline then you already agree that the paradox is true (regarding the god discussed in the paradox argument).

Your own god isn't the one discussed in the paradox argument? Who gives a shit? That's precisely why it's irrelevant! We're discussing the paradox argument... god's that aren't the ones in the argument have nothing to do with the argument!

God gave you free will,

You chose what you do, therefor you create your own problems.

true thatt

God gave you free will,

You chose what you do, therefor you create your own problems.

God created the cognitive mechanisms in our brains responsible for us making such decisions. You lose.

Without god people would see things for what they are instead of what they are told.

^This is a source for many problems in the world.

Without god people would see things for what they are instead of what they are told.

^This is a source for many problems in the world.

I assume by god you mean religion, people tend to mix those terms around quite a bit for some reason.

I assume by god you mean religion, people tend to mix those terms around quite a bit for some reason.

Yes, I do mean religion. And you do raise a good point by people mixing the two terms.

This was an awesome thread and a great read.

God IS the source for all of our problems:

If God has a plan, then the plan itself is rife with problems for us, hence he is the source for all of our problems.

If he gave us free will, and this leads to our problems, then he is responsible for that the same way any parent is responsible for allowing their young inexperienced children complete free will to do whatever they like.

Ultimately , either through direct action or the lack of direct action he is responsible for the continuation of all human problems.

------

BTW I love the typical fortune cookie theistic horseshit on the first couple pages, explaining through worn out sound bites how God is not an asshole for plaguing us with problems.

I think every theist should come equiped with a little keychain push button sound device that plays prerecorded messages:

God works in mysterious ways.
God has a plan.
God granted us free will.
Uncaused cause.
If we evolved from monkies, where did monkies come from?
etc.

Every theist should have one of these to click off a message for them anytime someone challenges the validity of their simple belief structure. That way the theist can actually physically automate the typical pre-programmed theistic responses, and the brain isn't troubled by nagging questions of logic and reason.

God is the Source....

....Lol.

God is the Source....

....Lol.

That sums it up.