frank3.16:


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?

free radical: 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.

Mr Troll: 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

frank3.16:


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.

rationalmind:

@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.

Demain_man: 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.

Ihedinobi:
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?

Logicboy03: Christian philosophers, atheisdt philosophers etc have all come tto the logical conclusion that omniscience and freewill cant exist together.....


But no, JOsh and Ihe would like us to believe otherwise.

Even the encyclopedia of philosophy is clear on this issue. I put two encyclopedias forward, yet ihe rejected them........this is the madness of faith.....rejecting common sense when it defies ur religion.....



And before anyone claims that i amb using appeal to authoerity......the logic is quite clear.......god knows everything and so, all you are doing is following gods knowledge...u aint making any choice

Ihedinobi:
Again, which logical argument?

Ihedinobi:
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.

Ihedinobi:
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

Ihedinobi:
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.

Ihedinobi:
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.

rationalmind:

Lol, I wasn't insulting you. I was just joking with you. Sorry bro

Ihedinobi:
Obviously, if God's knowledge does not have a cause-effect relationship with your choices, your question is rather meaningless.

What is your problem with God's knowledge about hell?

frank3.16:


Lol,

Mr preacher... Must what God knows about my future actions come to pass? Yes or No.

Honestly, i have No problem with God's knowledge about hell. Was just trying to point out the implication of ur statement

frank3.16:


Lol,

Mr preacher... Must what God knows about my future actions come to pass? Yes or No.

Honestly, i have No problem with God's knowledge about hell. Was just trying to point out the implication of ur statement

Logicboy03:


[size=18pt]Feigning ignorance again? Do you love to be dishonest for Christ?[/size]


First of all, I have made the logical argument on the problem of freewill and omnipotence to you both on this thread and another thread. Yet, you are stating indirectly that I am appealing to authority and you are also asking for the logical argument......as if you didnt see it!!!!

Here is the comment-



Here is the link to the other thread
https://www.nairaland.com/1198534/cowardice-atheism/61#14676165


7 long pages from that comment of you denying facts



https://www.nairaland.com/1198534/cowardice-atheism/61#14676165


Or better yet, you can use the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy
http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

Wow....so the stanford encyclopedia of philosophy is wrong or mistaken or dishonest on the topic of omniscience and freewill despite its clearly worded research and argument on the topic?

I would like to know the answer to the question I asked you earlier

Did the two encyclopedias of philosophies i presented on that thread use illogical or logical argument to highlight the problem omniscience and freewill?


This is funny...please answer the above question in bold

love is not a metaphysical thing. It is an abstract concept surrounding a physical process between two objects. Object A loves Object B.

Tony loves Tonia. Tony has to "physically interact" with Tonia before he can fall in love with Tonia. He has to see Tonia and like something about her before he loves her.

Love is nothing more than chemical reactions in your brain/body.

Love, like the mind, is an abstract concept used to explain a physical phenomena.....not metaphysical. Only a douche like yourself would call love a metaphysical concept.

Note that I say "metaphysical" in the sense of something not physical but purely spiritual/imaginary that has no effect on the real world.

Being a creator is irrelevant to the ability of omniscience. Your inclusion of God's creative abilities is a non-sequitur. You cant start with "God is a creator" and end with "therefore omniscience is...."







That is an irrelevant argument to the ability of omnisicence.


1) You are already assuming that God exists and also that he is a creator. Baseless assumptions are not facts.
2) You confuse yourself. I can not solve six digit algebra equations (100999X + 8887y = 0909) in milliseconds but I can create a robot who can. God creating humans that can forget will not make him able to forget, the same way a human can not solve six digit algebra equations even if he can create a robot that can do such equations.

frank3.16:


Lol,

Mr preacher... Must what God knows about my future actions come to pass? Yes or No.

Honestly, i have No problem with God's knowledge about hell. Was just trying to point out the implication of ur statement

Ihedinobi:
Are you saying that we are in agreement?

So you believe that neither a free will nor omniscience exists?

Mr Troll: In replying to me, Ihe just said that man does not have absolute freewill. I'm done with this argument.

rationalmind:

Yes. There is no freewill and there is no omniscience.

free radical: Aight mate...no harm done.
To answer your question earlier, I think God is just. If i die in the naija typhoon and find mysef before him and he isnt that way as described by my xtian faith then i expect him to be just in the way he will judge me. Atleast in my life tym ive always sought him out. I never scorned his existence because I couldnt see him then or touch him.

Ihedinobi:
In other words, you hold that knowledge does not exist and we do not make choices. Interesting.

nwuyag: Let us just agree with the independent relationship between omniscience and freew8ll.
Are you guys (xtians) 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 and knows where your final choices will lead you to before you were made(heaven/hell)?

rationalmind:

Good. You expect him to be just in the way he judges you? Same thing applies to your question when we face him. We expect him to be just the way he judges us.

As for us insulting him, its no fault of our own. He left no evidence and we treated him like a fairytale.

free radical: You are right. let's leave it at that then....let the just God judge. I so have noffin to lose if you turn out to be right and God doesnt exist cause i'd simply just float into nothingness .

nwuyag:
Let us just agree with the
independent relationship between
omniscience and freewill.
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. And knows if I will go to either heaven or hell infinite years before the world was made. And yet still made me. If you
can't see the madness in this, then there is
no point continuing this debate.

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

Ihedinobi:
Lol. You did not make a logical argument. You made a fallacious argument. That is what I've been telling you since Davidylan's Cowardice of Atheism. Your argument is a circular one. Go and fix that and we can talk.

As for the encyclopaedias, I read the articles then and saw the same circular argument. [size=18pt]I cannot accept that omniscience invalidates free will because free will invalidates omniscience.[/size] The definition of free will is not "the absence of omniscience" and vice versa. That's the work you still have to do.


See above.


See above.

Ihedinobi:
Describe those "chemical reaction", can you? What do they look, taste, smell, sound and feel like? Describe love physically.

It's curious how you continue to call it an abstract concept and still insist that it is a physical quantity.

Ihedinobi:
You really are wasting everyone's time, Lb. If God designed the ability to recall, then He knows how to recall, end of story. He does not need to possess the ability himself to know how it works if He designed it. Simple.

And stop whining about my bringing in the Creator aspect. There is no non sequitur there. I did not stary with "God is a Creator..." and end with "omniscience is..." I started with "if an omniscient is..." and ended with "therefore an omniscienct..." Stop lying for atheism.

By the way, being a creator is entirely relevant to being omniscient. A creator by definition is one who knows enough to bring some system with knowable properties into existence. Omniscience is a condition of knowing everything. As such, an omniscient [size=18pt]can[/size] be a creator and a creator is [size=18pt]ideally[/size] omniscient about systems it brings into existence. And that fits right into the argument here.

rationalmind:

The pascal wager.

Ihedinobi:
I answered you. My answer was that your question is of the same quality as this one: "who's the wife of a married bachelor?" Both are equally meaningless or nonsense.

Ok. Cool.

free radical: Its not really pascal's wager for me because I truly believe God exists not because of what I stand to gain or lose. I know in my hrt of hrt that God is real and I'm not just pretending to serve him because I dnt wanna rot in hell. God is not man that can be deceived, he sees you heart and he knows those that love him genuinely from those that merely but fear his wrath.

But I think it's a good theory for real atheist to employ in question dia position on God's existence Or wat do u tink?

rationalmind:

Lol, so, its not a theory for you to employ because ure convinced in your heart of hearts there is a God. How can it now be a theory for atheists to employ when they are also convinced in their heart of hearts there is no God

frank3.16:


Wow!! Isnt too direct... Pls dont put them in such a difficult position