mazaje:

Smart, you can not put smart and these two in the same sentence, ihe is just a dishonest person while Josh is just a deluded drone that can not think outside the normal christian platitudes. . .

Of course it's you who claimed that the Bible said nothing about sin and iniquity who are the honest one. Lololol.

nwuyag: Let us just agree with the independent relationship between omniscience and freew8ll.
Are you guys trying to tell me that we are going to be judged by an omniscience being that created us? Meaning the omniscient being which gave you the ability to make choices, knew where your final choices will lead you to before you were made. if you can't see the madness in this, then there is no point continuing this debate.

If you can't see the sense in it, there's no point continuing this debate with you.

GeneralShepherd:

Point of correction! Nobody can say you didn't try! Count Josh out of it,even when I was a christian I always respected the way you attempt to answer these question. Josh? No way, his answers address nothing

I was actually talking about rationalmind and myself but Josh is addressing everything y'all have thrown at him. You may not like how he does it but that does not mean that he hasn't addressed what you have demanded of him and completely too.

rationalmind:

I guess ihe was referring to both of us initially. All the same, I concur with you. Ihe is really trying. Unlike Josh who answers nothing.

I was. And Josh is doing very well.

Mr Troll: You threw down the bait only to leave it hanging. Funny dude.

What is the question?

I did?

The ones in the post you responded to with your own question.

Oduduwaboy: @Joshthefirst.......its clear to everyone who chooses to be honest and forthright that your arguments concerning 'God's' omniscience and freewill are simply tenuous and ridiculous!

Omniscience of God and man's freewill are irreconcilable.....no amount of demagoguery and parochial quotes from your holy book will change that...there are many 'infallible holy books' in the world joor!

Bla bla bla

Ihedinobi:
Lol @ sounding smart by playing ignorance. What does that even mean?

Dude, you have not made an argument. You have continued to perpetuate a statement and try to shove some conviction of yours down our throat. An argument starts with premises that lead to a conclusion. Your premise and conclusion are the same, that is circular reasoning. You insist that God's omniscience contradicts human free will because human free will contradicts Gid's omniscience. How does that sound like a serious argument to you? Even if 6.9 billion people make that same argument, it would still be ridiculous.

You still need to show how either contradicts the other. It is not enough to insist that one does because the other does too.

Did u read my post? how is that not showin how either contradicts each other?

Alright i give up. You were right all along, now i understand u.

But If God knows i will fornicate by 12am tomorrow and i make my choice of not fornicating at all what happened to what he knew?

Perhaps the problem here is i really dont understand u. Ur reply to my answer simply amazed me. Found out we are not even communicatin

D

D

Ihedinobi:
What, are you now being dishonest or suffering from amnesia? Weren't you claiming that the Bible didn't say anything about sin and iniquity?

The bible claims that those that do not believe in Jesus are condemned already. . .Nothing to do about sin or anything. . .A very pious muslim, taoist, indigenous religious person etc is condemned not for his iniquities but for not accepting the Jesus mythology. . .Simple, any other sophistry is your own making. . .

Ihedinobi:
Of course he shouldn't go to "fundamentalist christian sites", he should go to "rational atheistic sites".

Pls read the nonsense he posted as evidence for the "great flood" on that site. . .There are christian websites like answers in genesis and many others like them that create their own science, lie, spin and do all sorts just so that the bible and its mythical narrative can be sustained. . .Many christians have gone against them not even non christians. . .There are balanced and neutral places to learn about history and what it says about the bible not some lying christian sites that are out to make some money by promoting lies. . .

Ihedinobi:
Of course it's you who claimed that the Bible said nothing about sin and iniquity who are the honest one. Lololol.

Here we go again, the bible says those that do not believe in Jesus are condemned already , it does not even talk about any sin or iniquity in the particular verse i was referring to. . .Josh was trying to deny that the bible condemns and send to hell those that do not believe in Jesus and that was why I brought it up. . .My point was that for the bible it doesn't matter if you are a good person as long as you do not subscribe to the Jesus myth you are condemned already because of unbelief. . .That is my point, not the nonsense that you are trying to make out of it. . .

Ihedinobi:
What silliness? You think we're silly for thinking for ourselves and not accepting your dogma that omniscience contradicts free will. We're silly for demanding proof? But y'all aren't for insisting that theists prove the existence of God without appeal to any authority that upholds it? Lolololol.

Proof is not:
1. Even Christians agree that free will and omniscience are mutually exclusive

2. Two encyclopaedias have articles on the "contradiction".

3. Physical metaphysical mumbo jumbo.

[size=18pt]See how you feign ignorance?[/size] Thanks for exposing yourself. You put 1-3 as if I am arguing on the basis of appeal to authority neglecting the fact that I have clearly said that I am not arguing on authority as there is the logical argument that supports the claim that omniscience can not exist with freewill. Did I not repeat the logical argument time and time again?


Does it feel good to lie and use dishonest tactics to argue for Jesus? Where is number 4? Where is the logical argument that I made for the problem with omnisicence and freewill? Or better yet, are you now saying that the encyclopedias of philosophy are now using illogical arguments to support the claim that omniscience can not exist with freewill?

Ihedinobi:

Are you saying that cause-effect is operative only on physical things? Love causes men to do the silliest things, things like take the longer way to the coffee pot just to catch a glimpse of their sweetheart. Is love physical?

Nice try to shift the argument. Your cause and effect argument was silly. Let us leave it at that.

Or incase, you want to push the silliness further, how can you even try to argue that love is not physical? Even after mentioning a sweetheart (physical being/person) and "catching a glimpse" (physical process). Can a stone love? One needs a brain to love.

Ihedinobi:
You say omniscience is self-contradicting because God doesn't know how to remember. Lol. If memory recall is something God designed himself as a feature of his sentient creatures, He obvioualy doesn't need to possess the feature Himself to know how it works. It's just like saying that an engineer does not know how to produce music because he doesn't sing even though he created computers and devices that make or produce music.

You can not even see that you are mixing things. Omnisicience has nothing to do with God being a creator. You have just argued a non-sequitur because one can be a creator without being omniscient and vice versa.


We are arguing about omniscience as an ability. It can not exist because knowing everything at all times means that you can not forget. You dont know how it feels to forget firsthand because you have never forgotten and will never forget

Its now clear the Blackman has a long way to go...with the deliberately mischievous way @Joshthefirst & @Ihedinobi reason !

Its clear once again that common sense and faith will almost always chart divergent courses ......

I got a feeling these chaps are pastors somewhere. Well , please invite me to your churches maybe 'god' can save my soul through you , if his omniscience has not already consigned my soul to HELL !

But why is this thing so difficult for religious folks to understand? Or are they just deliberately trying not to understand?

I know for certain ihe will not reply logicboy not because I know he lost his phone but because I'm omniscient and I can never be wrong. I already knew the end of this thread even from the beginning. Eventually, Ihe doesn't reply logicboy. Isn't this showing ihe is simply acting out what I already know? Could he had chosen to go against what I know? Where is the freewill?

I admit it does appear as if one has freewill but that freewiil is actually an illusion n not real.

Just to throw in another spice in the stew.

1.God is omniscient(all knowing)
2.Prayer(supplication type) is asking God for a particular outcome
3. If 1 and 2 holds true,then the very act of praying is null and avoid as will still do what he wishes!

What is the rational behind praying to an Omniscient and omnipotent God?

frank3.16:


Did u read my post? how is that not showin how either contradicts each other?

Alright i give up. You were right all along, now i understand u.

But If God knows i will fornicate by 12am tomorrow and i make my choice of not fornicating at all what happened to what he knew?

Perhaps the problem here is i really dont understand u. Ur reply to my answer simply amazed me. Found out we are not even communicatin

I agree: you're not making a lot of sense. Let me illustrate to you what we have been doing.

Atheist: omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive

Theist: How so?

Atheist: If God knows what I'm going to do then I've no choice but to do that thing He knows that I'm going to do or else He will no longer be omniscient

Theist: But that's what you just said that I asked you to explain. You've hust used more words to say the same thing.


You see? This is what is called a circular argument. You assume a position that you're supposed to prove. i'll illustrate with another example.

A: Men were once boys

B: How so?

A: Because boys become men

Obviously all A did was repeat his first statement in a different way. We call that "definition". It is not a legitimate technique when you're trying to prove a logical position. You can't expect any intelligent person to accept that the reason that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive is because omniscience and free will are exclusive. That is the meaning of forcing a dogma down somebody's throat.

It is not proven that free will and omniscience are exclusive. And it is not a self-evident fact because we havw instances in today's world where one sentient being's knowledge concerning another sentient being has no causal effect on the latter's behavior. So you still have your work cut out for you. I still find your position preposterous and amusing.

As for me claiming ignorance, you have to show that the fact of which I claim ignorance does exist and that I have encountered evidence of its truth before and am only pretending unconsciousness of it.

mazaje:

The bible claims that those that do not believe in Jesus are condemned already. . .Nothing to do about sin or anything. . .A very pious muslim, taoist, indigenous religious person etc is condemned not for his iniquities but for not accepting the Jesus mythology. . .Simple, any other sophistry is your own making. . .

Mazaje lying for atheism. It's not like I didn't already post instances of where the Bible says specifically that condemnation is for ain and iniquity. Keep lying for atheism.

Pls read the nonsense he posted as evidence for the "great flood" on that site. . .There are christian websites like answers in genesis and many others like them that create their own science, lie, spin and do all sorts just so that the bible and its mythical narrative can be sustained. . .Many christians have gone against them not even non christians. . .There are balanced and neutral places to learn about history and what it says about the bible not some lying christian sites that are out to make some money by promoting lies. . .

What is your proof that they lied, Mazaje? That some Christians have gone against them? How laughable. I'm not seeing you running to church to worship the Christian God because some atheists converted to Christianity.

Here we go again, the bible says those that do not believe in Jesus are condemned already , it does not even talk about any sin or iniquity in the particular verse i was referring to. . .Josh was trying to deny that the bible condemns and send to hell those that do not believe in Jesus and that was why I brought it up. . .My point was that for the bible it doesn't matter if you are a good person as long as you do not subscribe to the Jesus myth you are condemned already because of unbelief. . .That is my point, not the nonsense that you are trying to make out of it. . .

Mazaje still lying for atheism. Now it is only a particular verse. But until now Mazaje didn't care to point out that he was refering to one verse. Again, it's only in that one verse that the Bible said anything about condemnation, abi? That's why Mazaje insists that as far as the Bible - the whole Bible o, not just that one verse - is concerned, people are not condemned for their sins and iniquities, just for their rejection of Christ. See bald-faced lie!

E never do o, now it is Josh that you're accusing of denying that anyone is condemned for not believing in Christ. Mazaje! You want make I go de hunt post and link for you? You can lie o!

Josh's position is simply that people are already under condemnation for their sin. And unless they accept Jesus for redemption, they will go to hell. You have not proven that wrong or a lie in any way. Na so so lie lie you jus de lie for here! The verse you keep making ao much noise about said specifically that if anyone does not believe in the Son of God, he is already condemned. How does that show that a man completely without any kind of moral failing is going to hell for not believing in Christ?

The verse follows from the Bible's position that all men without exception sin. It is for that sin that they are already condemned. And Jesus is their only escape. The only alternative to Jesus is a perfectly stellar life with absolutely no sin. Show me one person, Taoist, Muslim, Buddhist, even Christian, whose life is completely devoid of moral failure, can you?

MAZAJE LYING FOR ATHEISM SINCE 20...!!!

Ihedinobi:
I agree: you're not making a lot of sense. Let me illustrate to you what we have been doing.

Atheist: omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive

Theist: How so?

Atheist: If God knows what I'm going to do then I've no choice but to do that thing He knows that I'm going to do or else He will no longer be omniscient

Theist: But that's what you just said that I asked you to explain. You've hust used more words to say the same thing.


You see? This is what is called a circular argument. You assume a position that you're supposed to prove. i'll illustrate with another example.

A: Men were once boys

B: How so?

A: Because boys become men

Obviously all A did was repeat his first statement in a different way. We call that "definition". It is not a legitimate technique when you're trying to prove a logical position. You can't expect any intelligent person to accept that the reason that omniscience and free will are mutually exclusive is because omniscience and free will are exclusive. That is the meaning of forcing a dogma down somebody's throat.

It is not proven that free will and omniscience are exclusive. And it is not a self-evident fact because we havw instances in today's world where one sentient being's knowledge concerning another sentient being has no causal effect on the latter's behavior. So you still have your work cut out for you. I still find your position preposterous and amusing.

As for me claiming ignorance, you have to show that the fact of which I claim ignorance does exist and that I have encountered evidence of its truth before and am only pretending unconsciousness of it.

Lol, too much long talk... Honestly i dont really know what else u want to hear,

But i still ask... If God knows i will steal today and I change my mind(since the choice is mine) and decide never to steal again, what happened to what he knew? Was what he knew false? Does what he knows depend on what i do? If so, then i control what he knows, i am his god and nt the other way round.

Logicboy03:

[size=18pt]See how you feign ignorance?[/size] Thanks for exposing yourself. You put 1-3 as if I am arguing on the basis of appeal to authority neglecting the fact that I have clearly said that I am not arguing on authority as there is the logical argument that supports the claim that omniscience can not exist with freewill. Did I not repeat the logical argument time and time again?

Lololol. I feign ignorance? Lol. How?

Clearly stating that you are not appealing to authority does not prove that you aren't, Logicboy. Use your brain. You could be lying or you could be mistaken.

Which logical argument?

Does it feel good to lie and use dishonest tactics to argue for Jesus? Where is number 4? Where is the logical argument that I made for the problem with omnisicence and freewill? Or better yet, are you now saying that the encyclopedias of philosophy are now using illogical arguments to support the claim that omniscience can not exist with freewill?

Again, which logical argument?

It is an inarguable fact that human beings can be wrong or mistaken or dishonest. That fact applies to the contributors that wrote the articles you keep refering to in those encyclopedias. Besides, even they acknowledge that it is a debate. That means that there are opposing views on the question. Why should I take the view you offer beside the fact that it suits you? I see no reason to agree that there is any mutual exclusivity between the two concepts.

Nice try to shift the argument. Your cause and effect argument was silly. Let us leave it at that.

Or incase, you want to push the silliness further, how can you even try to argue that love is not physical? Even after mentioning a sweetheart (physical being/person) and "catching a glimpse" (physical process). Can a stone love? One needs a brain to love.

Lol. Logicboy, your desperation is showing. What shift did you mean?

Does the fact that love requires a brain to exist make love a physical thing? Are you trying to say that the brain is love? Dude, you're still falling into your own trap. If love, a metaphysical thing, is an act or action or a result of something the brain, a physical thing, does, you're agreeing that cause-effect applies to the metaphysical amd even across the metaphysical-physical barrier. You're in trouble, dude.

But I would be very interested to see how you'll prove that love is a physical thing

You can not even see that you are mixing things. Omnisicience has nothing to do with God being a creator. You have just argued a non-sequitur because one can be a creator without being omniscient and vice versa.


We are arguing about omniscience as an ability. It can not exist because knowing everything at all times means that you can not forget. You dont know how it feels to forget firsthand because you have never forgotten and will never forget

Logicboy, a non sequitur is an argument whose conclusion does not follow from the premises. How is that what I offered? You insisted that an omniscient being is a contradiction because it wouldn't know how to remember considering that it never forgets. And I responded with an argument for how it would know how to remember even without ever forgetting. Your answer above is a whine.

If the omniscient is a creator of sentient beings that are equipped with an ability to recall forgotten things, then the omniscient need never forget to know how to recall since he designed the ability to recall. If you want to show that the omnisciemt cannot be a creator, by all means, do. But your statement above already shows that you think that being omniscient does not prevent a being from being a creator.

Oduduwaboy: Its now clear the Blackman has a long way to go...with the deliberately mischievous way @Joshthefirst & @Ihedinobi reason !

Its clear once again that common sense and faith will almost always chart divergent courses ......

I got a feeling these chaps are pastors somewhere. Well , please invite me to your churches maybe 'god' can save my soul through you , if his omniscience has not already consigned my soul to HELL !

Stop whining and debate, bros.

rationalmind: But why is this thing so difficult for religious folks to understand? Or are they just deliberately trying not to understand?

I know for certain ihe will not reply logicboy not because I know he lost his phone but because I'm omniscient and I can never be wrong. I already knew the end of this thread even from the beginning. Eventually, Ihe doesn't reply logicboy. Isn't this showing ihe is simply acting out what I already know? Could he had chosen to go against what I know? Where is the freewill?

I admit it does appear as if one has freewill but that freewiil is actually an illusion n not real.

Ihe does not reply logicboy because Ihe lost his phone not because you knew that Ihe would not reply logicboy. And you knew that Ihe would not reply because you knew that Ihe would lose his phone, that he wouldn'y find another way to reply and that after trying he'd decide it wasn't worth it. In other words, you need have no direct intercourse with a system to know 100% what will go down in it. You jist need to be super-intelligent.

Besides, if you think free will is illusory and believe that it is mutually exclusive with omniscience, then you must also think that omniscience is real and therefore God is real. Thus you are not an atheist

GeneralShepherd: Just to throw in another spice in the stew.

1.God is omniscient(all knowing)
2.Prayer(supplication type) is asking God for a particular outcome
3. If 1 and 2 holds true,then the very act of praying is null and avoid as will still do what he wishes!

What is the rational behind praying to an Omniscient and omnipotent God?

Non sequitur. How does 3 follow from 1 & 2? And you could pray to ask God for an outcome that He wants too.

The rationale is communication. Man is God's deputy. Prayer is how the he communicates the needs of his charge to his Superior and how he learns what his Superior wants for the trust He committed to Him. It is also God's means of answering or providing the needs of the creation He entrusted to man, His steward or deputy. In other words, prayer is how man accesses God's omniscience and omnipotence to benefit the world around him and himself too.

frank3.16:


Lol, too much long talk... Honestly i dont really know what else u want to hear,

But i still ask... If God knows i will steal today and I change my mind(since the choice is mine) and decide never to steal again, what happened to what he knew? Was what he knew false? Does what he knows depend on what i do? If so, then i control what he knows, i am his god and nt the other way round.

I have explained what your work is

If God knows that you will steal today, He knows that you will not change your mind. If you change your mind, He already knew tuat you would change your mind. There is no relationship of dependence of any sort between the choices you.make and His knowledge. He knows what He knoes and you do what you do.

Ihedinobi:
Non sequitur. How does 3 follow from 1 & 2? And you could pray to ask God for an outcome that He wants too.

The rationale is communication. Man is God's deputy. Prayer is how the he communicates the needs of his charge to his Superior and how he learns what his Superior wants for the trust He committed to Him. It is also God's means of answering or providing the needs of the creation He entrusted to man, His steward or deputy. In other words, prayer is how man accesses God's omniscience and omnipotence to benefit the world around him and himself too.

How is it a non sequitur, My God know all my heart desire all my needs all my wants,why do I need to talk to Him since he already knows?

You said God's means of answering or providing the needs of the creation, are you saying I need to pray before God knows my needs? Or God just loves the attention He gets when people are wailing and asking for His help?

It is quite clear that Ihe just wants to be dubious. On the other hand, if he thinks Josh makes sound arguments then i truly fear for what Christianity has done to his brain.


Christianity creates a virus(sin, as defined by them) and claims that they have the only anti virus(Jesus). I wonder why Buddha will save you from sin when he doesn't make a claim of original sin from a mythical perfect pair. This is the nonsense christianity spout to show how their brand of delusion is better than all others.

The very definition of omniscience prevents the existence of freewill if the omniscient being is the supposed creator of the beings that should have the freewill. Omniscience is not knowing all possible outcomes, that is the realm of probability. Omniscience is knowing with certainty the only outcome despite every obstacle.

If i create anything and tell everybody that this thing will make six croaks every minute and it does, it does not require a soothsayer to conclude that i made the thing to do that. Something Ihe is trying so hard to not understand. Smh

Ihedinobi:
I have explained what your work is

If God knows that you will steal today, He knows that you will not change your mind. If you change your mind, He already knew tuat you would change your mind. There is no relationship of dependence of any sort between the choices you.make and His knowledge. He knows what He knoes and you do what you do.

What u explained up there is nothing bt a relationship of independence. U jst establlished the relationship and deny that it exists.

Let me ask u another question since u are trying to play smart and ignorance at the same time.

Must what God knows about me come to pass?

If u say there is No r/ship between what he knows and i do, how then do u answer the question above.

If there is No r/ship as u claim, then u imply that what God knows about me must not come to pass.

Bsides, ur quote above also implies God already. knows people going to hell.

Ihedinobi:
Ihe does not reply logicboy because Ihe lost his phone not because you knew that Ihe would not reply logicboy. And you knew that Ihe would not reply because you knew that Ihe would lose his phone, that he wouldn'y find another way to reply and that after trying he'd decide it wasn't worth it. In other words, you need have no direct intercourse with a system to know 100% what will go down in it. You jist need to be super-intelligent.

Besides, if you think free will is illusory and believe that it is mutually exclusive with omniscience, then you must also think that omniscience is real and therefore God is real. Thus you are not an atheist

@unbold. You just tried to explain what I already acknowledged. That it only requires an omniscient being to know the exact outcome of things. The example of just saying "ihe lost his phone" was because I didn't want to stress myself mentioning other ways ihe could had replied because I felt that one example was enough to explain my point.

@bolded. No, I don't think omniscience is real. If someone says the FSM is a married bachelor and you tried to show why a being cannot be married n be a bachelor at the same time. Does that mean you believe the FSM is a bachelor or it means you believe he is married. You know within yourself the answer is NO.

GeneralShepherd:

How is it a non sequitur, My God know all my heart desire all my needs all my wants,why do I need to talk to Him since he already knows?

You said God's means of answering or providing the needs of the creation, are you saying I need to pray before God knows my needs? Or God just loves the attention He gets when people are wailing and asking for His help?

It is a non sequitur because your conclusion does not follow from the premises. If God is omniscient and I ask him for a particular outcome, how does that render prayer null and void? I am not omniscient. I, through prayer, rely on God's omniscience to obtain an outcome that I desire or be disabused of wrong notions of outcomes I desire. So omniscience does not render prayer null and void at all, rather it establishes very strong reason for prayer.

Prayer is not required for nor does it exist for the purpose of giving God information. It is a way of accessing God's information and power, as I already said in that post you quoted.

I don't believe that I gave you confusing information that should result in the questions in your last paragraph.

What Ihedinobi claims to be debating is simply wasting everybody's time.

Just let him win this debate so that he continues to wallows in his stupid little world of knowledge. I SMH for him.

You go fear where creations dey question their creator. Abi una no believe say una be creations again. Atheist shud leave christians alone because they have chosen to live by faith. In the end who has more to lose if truly there exists a God....ask urselves that question first. If the same typhoon hits naija today and u r taken and find yourself standing before God do you think all this logic u r spewing will save ur unbelief. The tym u hav is now. Sumtyms u hav to be "foolish" in order to be wise.

free radical: You go fear where creations dey question their creator. Abi una no believe say una be creations again. Atheist shud leave christians alone because they have chosen to live by faith. In the end who has more to lose if truly there exists a God....ask urselves that question first. If the same typhoon hits naija today and u r taken and find yourself standing before God do you think all this logic u r spewing will save ur unbelief. The tym u hav is now. Sumtyms u hav to be "foolish" in order to be wise.

Shut up.

And if the typhoon hits naija today and you find yourself before God, he asks you why you didn't use the brain and reason he gave to know christianity is false. What will you tell him? Do you also think your christianity will save you?

rationalmind:

Shut up.

And if the typhoon hits naija today and you find yourself before God, he asks you why you didn't use the brain and reason he gave to know christianity is false. What will you tell him?

E neva reach level of insults na haba. Just make ur point and go. Did it add anytin to you by adding that insult. Be more civil in relating to pple afterall u are supposed to be the 'intelligent' one.

free radical: You go fear where creations dey question their creator. Abi una no believe say una be creations again. Atheist shud leave christians alone because they have chosen to live by faith. In the end who has more to lose if truly there exists a God....ask urselves that question first. If the same typhoon hits naija today and u r taken and find yourself standing before God do you think all this logic u r spewing will save ur unbelief. The tym u hav is now. Sumtyms u hav to be "foolish" in order to be wise.

And how does asking these mind boggling questions mean one is questioning his creator? Do you think the creator can be questioned?
Bsides if religious folks believe they are the messangers of the creator, they should answer the question rightly without creatiing confusion. If they dont then they are not real messangers of the creator unless u say the creator is a confusionist.
Wasnt it the creator that created the human brain? Didnt he want us to reason with it? How does the brain doin its work mean the creator is being questioned?