How can you be a True Christian™ if you don't take the Eden story literally?

[Subduction Zone]

I said the same thing you did. With more detail. I did follow it. I produced a god concept which is both moral and omnipotent and omniscient, and BTW omnibenevolent, where freewill exists without a single contradiction. And I did it in approx. 200+ words.

Using a childrens book and a paper plate analogy.

No, now you are misunderstanding at best. And your child's book analogy has been refuted. You limited God's omniscience with that argument. In other words you had to make him not omniscient. You shot yourself in the foot. Don't worry, fundies do that all of the time.

 

[Sgt. Pepper]

No, you lost. But that is because you cannot argue rationally and logically.

Would you like to try again? Your arguments were all refuted multiple times. As to your claimed charity offer, it was clearly not genuine. You did not place the money in escrow. You need to do that because your word does not appear to be at all reliable. You didn't give a neutral judge. You have shown again and again an inability to reason rationally and honestly. You cannot be a judge.

Personally, I believe that you are correct in your assessment of the conflict present in this thread. I don't believe it's possible to reason with someone who persistently resorts to using derogatory names and verbally abusive language. There are times when I see this type of behavior online and wonder if it reflects the person's true personality in real life. It's not the first time I've seen this kind of behavior online, and to be honest, I consider it cyberbullying.

 

[It Aint Necessarily So]

The claim made ( Free-will cannot exist if God is both omnipotent and omniscient ) is modal logic. It, itself, is not falsifiable. If the objection to my rebuttal is "it's unfalsifiable" that is shifting the goal-posts. If the metric for success requires "falisfiability", then the original claim fails. "Free-will cannot exist if God is both omnipotent and omniscient" is unfalsifiable.

Why did you post this in response to, "This is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics with unfalsifiable gods claims gratuitously added"? Did you think is supported or contradicted my comment in some way, or related to it in some other way?

I agree that omniscience precludes free will (omnipotence is irrelevant), as does just about everybody else with an opinion there unless they are defending the Abrahamic god.

And I consider it self-evidently true that these two ideas are mutually exclusive. One says everything is known to the deity before it happens and the other says that nobody including the actor himself knows with certainty what he will do before he does it. Belief otherwise, which is incoherent due to the internal contradiction, is motivated by the need for both divine omniscience and human free will to exist simultaneously to justify the Christian doctrine of damnation by a tri-omni god for human disobedience, and so, for a the believer, they simply do coexist and he won't hear otherwise.

Moreover, I consider the issue of whether free will exists - that we could have done otherwise at a given point in time - undecidable, but I lean against free will being possible. The self cannot generate will. The brain does that and delivers its choices to the self in the theater of consciousness by the subject, which is experienced will originating in consciousness rather than neural circuits.

That's FYI. I'm not interested in debating this with you or anybody else. I will explain further if you like, but I've seen your argument and don't care to relitigate this with anybody whose entire argument is essentially, "Yes, human free will and divine omniscience can coexist. Nothing about the one precludes the other." It would be useless to us both to have such a discussion. Your story book argument didn't help your case. As I said, it's the many worlds hypothesis with gods added, and nothing about it implies that any choice made in any world was not caused. Yes, the process of generating volition in the brain may include indeterminate quantum events, but these ideas are still created in the unseen brain and delivered to the mind, and we obey thinking we were the source.

All thought is generated by the mind and imported into the theater of consciousness. Even when indecisive, even when internally conflicted, we are still puppets, but in that case, of competing regions of the brain - maybe a subcortical urge (hypothalamus says, "You're thirsty, drink") and a contradictory cortical thought ("I'm having surgery in the morning and must not satisfy that thirst by drinking").

@It Aint Necessarily So . You both seem to be, literally unable to see things that are objectively in front of your faces. And yet both of you claim to be reasonable evidence based "critical-thinkers" How is it both of you seem to be so literally blind?

Assuming you are sincere in that opinion, it tells me that you're wearing a faith-based confirmation bias. It shows you what you want to see.

I produced a god concept which is both moral and omnipotent and omniscient, and BTW omnibenevolent, where freewill exists without a single contradiction. And I did it in approx. 200+ words.

In your own mind. I'm sure that you can find support from other zealous theist apologists, but you won't from those who can spot fallacy, contradiction, and when an argument's conclusion is unsound.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

The universe appears to be natural. If you want to claim otherwise the burden of proof is upon you.

No, the burden of proof is also on you. Or is it only blind faith in you that you treat the universe as natural?

 

[dybmh]

I do not feel.like.spoon feeding you today. Tell me when you are willing to learn how to argue rationally and logically.

Demonstrate honesty integrity reading comprehension...

All of those things are required for having a reasoned logical debate.

 

[dybmh]

No, now you are misunderstanding at best. And your child's book analogy has been refuted. You limited God's omniscience with that argument. In other words you had to make him not omniscient. You shot yourself in the foot. Don't worry, fundies do that all of the time.

Nope. You would need to show that limitation instead of just the bare assertion. Clearly if you could do so, I would be donating $200 bucks to your fav charity.

But, let me guess you dont have a fav charity do you? That's not part of your religion?

 

[Subduction Zone]

No, the burden of proof is also on you. Or is it only blind faith in you that you treat the universe as natural?

It depends upon how one demands "proof". A logical argument is actually a proof.But he does the best that he can do to avoid a logical argument. He shot himself in the foot with his weak " rebuttal" and refuses to touch the argument that he knows that he will lose.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Demonstrate honesty integrity reading comprehension...

All of those things are required for having a reasoned logical debate.

So is that your excuse? Your poor reading comprehension? Need I remind you about your failure when it came to who was claiming that God is a liar?

 

[dybmh]

Why did you post this in response to, "This is the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics with unfalsifiable gods claims gratuitously added"? Did you think is supported or contradicted my comment in some way, or related to it in some other way?

because that is the original claim made.

The original claim is: "Freewill cannot exist if God is both omnipotent and omniscient."

I rebutted that. Note: I'm not sure if what you described accurately matches my rebuttal. Regardless: you claimed that my rebuttal, whatever your imagining, is unfalsifiable. I agree, and so is the original claim.

This means that whatever it is you're trying to say is completely irrelevant.

I skipped the rest of your post, because in my experience, its necessay to deal with things individually with you. I think someone your verbosisty "Trying to win with quantity instead of quality".

So, if you would like to debate with me. The claim is: "Freewill cannot exist if God is both omnipotent and omniscient." and your objection to whatever you think I said because it is unfalsifiable is rejected. The original claim is unfalsifiable.

Do you have some other rebuttal to what I said?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. You would need to show that limitation instead of just the bare assertion. Clearly if you could do so, I would be donating $200 bucks to your fav charity.

But, let me guess you dont have a fav charity do you? That's not part of your religion?

Again, that is a false flex on your part. You can't judge nor can I. Is the money in escrow? No one believes you when you do not make a challenge in good faith.

 

[dybmh]

So is that your excuse? Your poor reading comprehension? Need I remind you about your failure when it came to who was claiming that God is a liar?

No.... there seems to be a major malfunction in your capability to recognize what is being actually said.

 

[Subduction Zone]

because that is the original claim made.

The original claim is: "Freewill cannot exist if God is both omnipotent and omniscient."

I rebutted that. Note: I'm not sure if what you described accurately matches my rebuttal. Regardless: you claimed that my rebuttal, whatever your imagining, is unfalsifiable. I agree, and so is the original claim.

This means that whatever it is you're trying to say is completely irrelevant.

I skipped the rest of your post, because in my experience, its necessay to deal with things individually with you. I think someone your verbosisty "Trying to win with quantity instead of quality".

So, if you would like to debate with me. The claim is: "Freewill cannot exist if God is both omnipotent and omniscient." and your objection to whatever you think I said because it is unfalsifiable is rejected. The original claim is unfalsifiable.

Do you have some other rebuttal to what I said?

No, a failed argument is not a rebuttal. Your solution was to make God not omniscient.

 

[dybmh]

Again, that is a false flex on your part. You can't judge nor can I. Is the money in escrow? No one believes you when you do not make a challenge in good faith.

If it was so easy to rebut my argument you would have typed it already.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No.... there seems to be a major malfunction in your capability to recognize what is being actually said.

Projection again.. You kept trying to say that I called God a liar when that was never the case. Now who.was calling
God a liar in that argument?

 

[Subduction Zone]

If it was so easy to rebut my argument you would have typed it already.

I already did. Your inability to understand does not mean that it did not happen.

 

[dybmh]

No, a failed argument is not a rebuttal. Your solution was to make God not omniscient.

Not true. My solution puts no limitation on god. What limitation is it? Does the author of the Harry Potter books have omniscence over each and every aspect of the book or not?

The failure is objecting to "falsifiablity" means that the original claim "Freewill cannot exist if God is both omniscient and omnipotent" is a fail.

That's it. No rebuttal is needed if the metric for success requires falisifiability. It's that simple.

You can't make a hypothetical claim about a car, and then argue, that the hypothetical car isn't a real car.

 

[dybmh]

Projection again.. You kept trying to say that I called God a liar when that was never the case. Now who.was calling
God a liar in that argument?

You really are desperate to trot out that God is a liar claim. It's all you have left isn't it. So sad. NOT.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

It depends upon how one demands "proof". A logical argument is actually a proof.But he does the best that he can do to avoid a logical argument. He shot himself in the foot with his weak " rebuttal" and refuses to touch the argument that he knows that he will lose.

Yeah, but logic is valid or sound. That is not the same.
But what is the universe to you?

 

[dybmh]

I already did. Your inability to understand does not mean that it did not happen.

prove it.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Not true. My solution puts no limitation on god. What limitation is it? Does the author of the Harry Potter books have omniscence over each and every aspect of the book or not?

The failure is objecting to "falsifiablity" means that the original claim "Freewill cannot exist if God is both omniscient and omnipotent" is a fail.

That's it. No rebuttal is needed if the metric for success requires falisifiability. It's that simple.

You can't make a hypothetical claim about a car, and then argue, that the hypothetical car isn't a real car.

It did too. .The limitation was that God did not know until after the fact. If God did not know he was not.omniscient.