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

[dybmh]

Your fringe definition is not in the context of what I wrote so irrelevant.

You made an exclusive universal statement. "no God has been known to exist." That's a rather foolish statement for a person who understands how the human mind works.

 

[dybmh]

All truth is not factual, only proven truth is factual.

Yes! Understanding can come from the intellect or emotions. Both produce truth in totally different ways. Neither relies on "facts".

 

[dybmh]

And if God was omniscient he would know which timeline that the person would take. You are just trying to move the problem down the road, but your solution is to say "God does not know this". That is limiting his omnipotence. In other words you are solving the problem by making God not omniscient.

Yes. God knows which timeline a person takes. I have repeatedly said God knows. Why do you keep introducing a limitation into what I'm saying? The individual chooses the timeline. God knows which one they will choose. That is free-will with an omniscient God.

Where is the limitation, please?

 

[dybmh]

@Subduction Zone ,

Maybe you're not considering the negations from the, forgive me, God-perspective?

 

[Subduction Zone]

You made an exclusive universal statement. "no God has been known to exist." That's a rather foolish statement for a person who understands how the human mind works.

How does how the human mind work help you?

 

[Subduction Zone]

Yes. God knows which timeline a person takes. I have repeatedly said God knows. Why do you keep introducing a limitation into what I'm saying? The individual chooses the timeline. God knows which one they will choose. That is free-will with an omniscient God.

Where is the limitation, please?

Now you a appear to be changing your argument. You are not being consistent. If God knows which path a man will take it does not matter if there were different possibilities. Now you are demoting your entire argument to one that can be refuted with a "So what?" You do not seem to understand that it only appears that the individual is choosing. You are being far too shallow in your analysis.

 

[Subduction Zone]

@Subduction Zone ,

Maybe you're not considering the negations from the, forgive me, God-perspective?

LOLL! Well there is some pointless handwaving.

 

[F1fan]

In other words he has to redefine terms.

Right. If you make statements with one definition and someone responds using a different definition, they understand this, then they must know they can't retort my statement and revert to tricks that are oen for all to see. This happens when someone isn't concerned about their integrity and reputation.

He demotes the idea of omniscience to try to refute the fact that if a God is omniscient and omnipotence that God is responsible for everything it appears that he has to demote the concept of God to claim that one exists. That appears that to be more than a bit blasphemous to me.

This is the dilemma for believers who don't actually have a real God to investigate and describe.

 

[metis]

On another thread he used the definition of god where some people are overly absorbed by a celebrity or athlete and call them a god. This is not the religious definition of god.

My signature statement I had for a long time but still believe in ran like this: "Whatever caused this universe/multiverse I'll call 'God' and pretty much just leave it at that."

 

[dybmh]

How does how the human mind work help you?

Because a god is anything that can create destroy and inspire. I mentioned politics to @F1fan. Clearly Trump is a (false) god. Understanding how that dynamic operates in the human mind is useful and true. Denying it is foolish.

 

[dybmh]

Now you a appear to be changing your argument. You are not being consistent. If God knows which path a man will take it does not matter if there were different possibilities. Now you are demoting your entire argument to one that can be refuted with a "So what?" You do not seem to understand that it only appears that the individual is choosing. You are being far too shallow in your analysis.

No. Not changing anything. I think I said 3 times that in the example I brought, there is a version of me eating piles of bacon. But I am choosing not to.

How is it that I am saying the human chooses which timeline and God knows which timeline they are choosing is being shifted BY YOU into "it doesnt matter what choice is made"? The consequences are laid out and known. That doesn't mean the consequences "don't matter". It means the opposite.

LOLL! Well there is some pointless handwaving.

That's not an answer. Are you or are you not considering the negations? If you claim some version of "nonsense", that is confirming you are not considering it. The negations always exist along side the chosen timeline.

Again. Are you considering that from God's pespective there is a **negated** version of me that is eating piles of bacon?

 

[dybmh]

Right. If you make statements with one definition and someone responds using a different definition, they understand this, then they must know they can't retort my statement and revert to tricks that are oen for all to see. This happens when someone isn't concerned about their integrity and reputation.

This is the dilemma for believers who don't actually have a real God to investigate and describe.

I already have proven the existence of the observable real god you serve while ignorantly denying it exists. The desire to reduce the definition into something which supports your rigid self-identity does not mean the defintion is wrong.

It is a standard defintion.

 

[Subduction Zone]

No. Not changing anything. I think I said 3 times that in the example I brought, there is a version of me eating piles of bacon. But I am choosing not to.

How is it that I am saying the human chooses which timeline and God knows which timeline they are choosing is being shifted BY YOU into "it doesnt matter what choice is made"? The consequences are laid out and known. That doesn't mean the consequences "don't matter". It means the opposite.

So what? That does not help you. Do you want to break it down? You seem to be having a very very hard time understanding the basics.

That's not an answer. Are you or are you not considering the negations? If you claim some version of "nonsense", that is confirming you are not considering it. The negations always exist along side the chosen timeline.

Again. Are you considering that from God's pespective there is a **negated** version of me that is eating piles of bacon?

Actually it is. A worthless post does not require much in the way of refutation. Part of your problem is that you keep making unjustified assumptions.

 

[Trailblazer]

If God knows which path a man will take it does not matter if there were different possibilities. You do not seem to understand that it only appears that the individual is choosing.

There were different choices the man could have made, choice a or choice b.
If the man had chosen a God would have known that the man would choose a.
If the man had chosen b God would have known that the man would choose b.

God's knowledge does not cause anyone to choose anything.
There is no causal relationship between what God knows and what anyone chooses.
The knowledge of God surrounds the realities of all things at all times. It is a quality of the omniscient God.

 

[Subduction Zone]

I already have proven the existence of the observable real god you serve while ignorantly denying it exists. The desire to reduce the definition into something which supports your rigid self-identity does not mean the defintion is wrong.

It is a standard defintion.

View attachment 79722

I see, so you were using an equivocation fallacy.

In case you did not realize it we were talking about a "miraculous God".

 

[Subduction Zone]

There were different choices the man could have made, choice a or choice b.
The man chose a and God knew the man would choose a.
If the man had chosen b, God would have known that the man would choose b.

There is no causal relationship between what God knows and what the man chooses.
The knowledge of God surrounds the realities of all things at all times. It is a quality of the omniscient God.

So what? Calling it that does not help you. I do not think that @dybmh can be honest enough to break this down. Do you think that you could do so?

 

[dybmh]

So what? That does not help you. Do you want to break it down? You seem to be having a very very hard time understanding the basics.

The point is: You said that the choice doesnt matter. But if the consequences are set, then the choice matters.

When a person makes a choice they are transferred into the timeline where the predetermined consequences occur. I don't need to hear YOUR version of how it fails, because anyone can construct a logical contradiction on demand if they choose to.

Please take what I said above, and show the logical contradiction? Again, What I said above. Not what you think I'm saying, not what you hope Im saying. Not what you believe I ma saying. Take my precise and carefully chosen words, and show their fault. If you can. Here it is below. One sentence.

When an individual makes a choice they are transferred into the timeline where the predetermined consequences occur.

Actually it is. A worthless post does not require much in the way of refutation. Part of your problem is that you keep making unjustified assumptions.

You still didn't answer the question. My claim is below. Notice that no limitation on either God's omniscience or free-will has been produced.

When an individual makes a choice they are transferred into the timeline where the predetermined consequences occur.

 

[Trailblazer]

So what? Calling it that does not help you. I do not think that @dybmh can be honest enough to break this down. Do you think that you could do so?

I just explained it (broke it down).

 

[dybmh]

There were different choices the man could have made, choice a or choice b.
If the man had chosen a God would have known that the man would choose a.
If the man had chosen b God would have known that the man would choose b.

God's knowledge does not cause anyone to choose anything.
There is no causal relationship between what God knows and what anyone chooses.
The knowledge of God surrounds the realities of all things at all times. It is a quality of the omniscient God.

I think they are combining the omnipotence and omnibenevolence paradox, but are not wise enough or patient enough to break it down. The next question after an honest debate partner accepts what you have said is logical and consistent, should be, "why does god permit people to make bad choices." As I've said this is a valid and worthy question. But @Subduction Zone cannot tolerate giving one single inch to either of us because... well, you know why.

Naturally over-simplifying deflects and works to their advantage in producing the denial.

I love the "no causal" relationship detail. That is excellent!

 

[dybmh]

So what? Calling it that does not help you. I do not think that @dybmh can be honest enough to break this down. Do you think that you could do so?

I broke it down. I brought you details. I brought you summaries. But none of that is needed. One sentence will do now that you have admitted that multiple timelines are not being ignored. Ignoring those is what produces the atheist's religious talking-point.

When an individual makes a choice they are transferred into the timeline where the predetermined consequences occur.

No limitation on God's omniscience, no limitation on free-will is produced.