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?

rationalmind:

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

rationalmind:

That's twisting and you know it. I didn't say knowledge doesn't exists. Omniscient implies perfect and aboslute knowledge. Saying omniscience doesn't exist is not the same as saying knowledge does not exist.

And yes, we don't make choices. Everything we do has its root in genetics or our social conditioning.

Take a deep look at every choice you feel uve ever made, they all have their roots in your genetics or social conditioning. You are not making any choice. Its what uve been conditioned to do.

There is no freewill, its an illusion.

nwuyag:
is this what you want a sane human to believe?

I can only conclude that ihe is going through a tough time pretending to believe the sh1t he has been posting here. We are not kids. Your older posts show that you can think better than this

Joshthefirst: smh.

Do you realize the implications of what you just stated?

Joshthefirst: you should ask him if his name is in the list of those going to hell and if he wants to go to hell first.
That'll shut him up.

My delivery is always astute and direct(and most times, in a complete package hindering them from asking other foolish questions) and tells them the bitter truth, that's why they try to pretend I'm dumb, they just try to make themselves feel good. They don't realize they're acting a pattern normally observed when one denies Gods existence and begins to formulate all these foolish theories and stjupid questions and more stjupid conclusions to rationale his bold and blind foolishness.

frank3.16:


I cant jst stop laughing... Now that i am sure u accept that there is something like a married bachelor, we might as welll talk abour the wife... I mean we said ' married' right?

Cant u see that aLl u have been tryin to say is that there lies a man who is married but is a bachelor and yet his status is unrated to how many wifes or children he has just because he is alos a bachelor.

Now how rediculous does that sound?

Cant u see that u have given him two status at once? yet u chose to deal with only his bachelor hood angle and Neglect his married status. What then happened to the marriied status u have given him?

Do u think this should make sense?

Logicboy03:

No one made the argument in bold or defined freewill as the absence of omniscience.

Nice.....claim that the arguments against your position are circular without pointing how or adding strawmen.

The argument is simple-

The knowledge of an omniscient being is knowledge of everything including the past, present and future. He knows the future. He knows your future. Therefore, you future has already been seen. You cant change your future. The omniscient being knows when you will die and how you will die. How do you have freewill? The omnipotent knows what you will eat the next day.

Jesus had a vision that Judas will betray him
Could Judas avoid betraying Jesus? No because God would have been wrong. You cant know everything and then be wrong on your own vision.

I know that you want to be silly. I wont indulge you. What I said was very clear. This line of argument is even off topic from omniscience.

@ bolded words- see how you use sophistry to argue nonsense?

Even by your own words omniscience is not a necessary condition for a creator. So, how then is it of any value to the argument about the contradiction of omniscience?

And also, you claim that a creator is ideally omniscient. Why? We humans have created things without omniscient knowledge. Even Einstein would be an ignoramus by today's standards because we have advanced in physics.

Omniscience has no practical application in this real world- no human we know of is omniscient. To even argue that it is ideal for a creator to be omniscient is an example of arguing from ignorance. You dont know and you just claim.......funny enough, if even it is ideal for Yaweh to be omniscient, he is only one creator- it doesnt apply to others

As for you foolish argument.....I see how you shifted the argument from "forgetting" to "recall"......


First of all- forgetting is an imperfection. A computer memory can not forget information unless it is deleted. We humans have fallible brains....we forget. God cant forget...perfect memories do not forget

Assuming that God is the creator, God would have only needed to add an inhibitor to our brain to limit our memory capacity indirectly making us forget. This would make more sense than God creating an ability that he has no way of feeling. Funny enough, forgetting is not an ability rather, an inability to know.

God's perfect nature wont allow him to forget.
God's omniscience wont allow him to forget since he knows everything. The moment he forgets, he doesnt know everything.

Checkmate.

Ihedinobi:
Dude, omniscience is the condition of knowing all things. That is, it is the condition of possessing all knowledge. If you deny the existence of such a condition, you deny as well the possibility of possessing knowledge and thus the existence of knowledge itself, for there is no such thing as knowledge when there is no sentient being "knowing".

The existence of the condition of imperfext knowledge then means that a condition of perfect knowledge also exists.

The part of not making choices is absurd reasoning. Even when you say that it is our genetic makeup and social conditioning that biases us to certain choices rather than others you still assume the existence of a power of choice. You only insist that we choose what we choose because of our genetic makeup and social conditioning.

That choice exists is not even up for debate. It is evident every day of our lives. If it did not exist at all, we would only ever do the same things, eat the same things, hang out with the same people etc without variation of any sort. Because we can choose, we can vary our routines. We can choose one thing today and the exact opposite tomorrow despite the absence of any alteration in the larger society or changes in our genes. Choice is real and abundandantly evident.

Joshthefirst: you should ask him if his name is in the list of those going to hell and if he wants to go to hell first.
That'll shut him up.

My delivery is always astute and direct(and most times, in a complete package hindering them from asking other foolish questions) and tells them the bitter truth, that's why they try to pretend I'm dumb, they just try to make themselves feel good. They don't realize they're acting a pattern normally observed when one denies Gods existence and begins to formulate all these foolish theories and stjupid questions and more stjupid conclusions to rationale his bold and blind foolishness.

nnofaith: why would an atheist be afraid of your fake hell?! yahweh can take his hell and shove it up his ....

frank3.16:


I cant jst stop laughing... Now that i am sure u accept that there is something like a married bachelor, we might as welll talk abour the wife... I mean we said ' married' right?

Cant u see that aLl u have been tryin to say is that there lies a man who is married but is a bachelor and yet his status is unrated to how many wifes or children he has just because he is alos a bachelor.

Now how rediculous does that sound?

Cant u see that u have given him two status at once? yet u chose to deal with only his bachelor hood angle and Neglect his married status. What then happened to the marriied status u have given him?

Do u think this should make sense?

Joshthefirst: you should ask him if his name is in the list of those going to hell and if he wants to go to hell first.
That'll shut him up.

My delivery is always astute and direct(and most times, in a complete package hindering them from asking other foolish questions) and tells them the bitter truth, that's why they try to pretend I'm dumb, they just try to make themselves feel good. They don't realize they're acting a pattern normally observed when one denies Gods existence and begins to formulate all these foolish theories and stjupid questions and more stjupid conclusions to rationale his bold and blind foolishness.

Ihedinobi:
Dude, omniscience is the condition of knowing all things. That is, it is the condition of possessing all knowledge. If you deny the existence of such a condition, you deny as well the possibility of possessing knowledge and thus the existence of knowledge itself, for there is no such thing as knowledge when there is no sentient being "knowing".

The existence of the condition of imperfext knowledge then means that a condition of perfect knowledge also exists.

Logicboy03:



How is this guy not silly?


Here is his fallacious argument (word for word)

1) omniscience is the condition of knowing all things.
2) That is, it is the condition of possessing all knowledge.
3) If you deny the existence of such a condition, you deny as well the possibility of possessing knowledge
4) and thus the existence of knowledge itself, for there is no such thing as knowledge when there is no sentient being "knowing".



How does 1 and 2 end up with the conclusion in number 3?


If one denies omniscience, then one is also denying the possibility of possessing knowledge and thus the existence of knowledge? <<< What kind of retar.ded logic is this?

rationalmind:

I don't think I'm very comfortable with your definition of omniscience. It is the ability to possess all knowledge about ALL THINGS. I'm more comfortable with this definition.

Now let's move on

You said if I'm denying the existence of such a condition, then I'm denying the possibility of possessing knowledge.

What sort of reasoning is this? If I deny the possibility of possessing all knowledge about our universe, then I'm denying the possibility of possessing some knowledge of our universe. Smh.

I repeat myself. Absolute knowledge about all things is impossible, hence omniscient is an impossibility.

You didn't understand me when I said making choices doesn't exist. Now I see why you don't understand freewill and omniscient cannot co-exist.

You are not making choices. No one is making any choice. You are acting out what uve been conditioned to do. You would probably be a jihadist today if osama bin laden had been your father. You would had thought the choice was urs to make to or not to be a jihadist. But no, ure just acting out what uve been conditioned to do. Choice is an illusion.

rationalmind:

And that exactly is what annoys me. They feel everyone is as scared of hell as they are.
I've said it time and time again even on this forum.

Even if there is a hell, I'll gladly, Joyfully and happily walk in.

Logicboy03:



How is this guy not silly?


Here is his fallacious argument (word for word)

1) omniscience is the condition of knowing all things.
2) That is, it is the condition of possessing all knowledge.
3) If you deny the existence of such a condition, you deny as well the possibility of possessing knowledge
4) and thus the existence of knowledge itself, for there is no such thing as knowledge when there is no sentient being "knowing".



How does 1 and 2 end up with the conclusion in number 3?


If one denies omniscience, then one is also denying the possibility of possessing knowledge and thus the existence of knowledge? <<< What kind of retar.ded logic is this?

Ihedinobi:
Curious that the definition that you're comfortable with is the wrong one. Omniscience is not an ability, it is a characteristic or a condition. An omniscient does not "have the ability to know everything". An omniscient "knows everything". I shouldn't need to start posting dictionary definitions here, should I?

Your declaring that omniscience is impossible does not make it so. Find a better argument.

There are countless examples of people who turned out different than their "conditioning" should allow. Not every terrorist was brought up by terrorists. Not every person reared in environments such as bin Ladin's home turn out to be terrorists. This is self-evident.

Choice is real. Without it, there would be no variations, no surprises, no changes. Obama is still married to the same woman and has two kids by her. His father left his mom. Why is he not doing the same thing? Do you need me to go hunt examples of people whose "conditioning" and "genes" should have made them behave in a certain way but who went the opposite way?

Choice is real, dude.

Joshthefirst: he's the one that brought up hell in his post.

And was hell not the central parts of the questions of some about omniscience and freewill?

Ihedinobi:
Logicboy...unashamedly lying for atheism since 20...!!!

And it's a very silly kind of lie too. You boldly say that no one made any such argument and then go on in the very next breath, in a manner of speaking, to make it. Dishonest Logicboy! Either you're embarrassingly dishonest, Logicboy, or you are embarrassingly unintelligent. Maybe even both.

When you say the bolded, you are saying exactly what I say you people do. If you insist that the proof for the argument that God's omniscience is contradicted by human free will is that human beings cannot choose something that God does not already know (that is, free will cannot be exercised where omniscience already exists), what have you done but simply offer your assumption as its own proof again?

Logicboy, stop lying and start thinking.

Ihedinobi:
Lol. If you are afraid of taking on the challenge, just say so. You're the one insisting that a feeling is a physical quantity. I don't mind learning how you came to that conclusion.

Ihedinobi:
Lol. Logicboy, quit your excuses already. It's embarrassing. You can't just continue dismissing arguments that confound you by wishing they were sophistry. Do you even know what sophistry is? Smh.

By my own words? Which words, Logicboy? You're lying a lot in this one post o!

Ihedinobi:
You do know the meaning of "ideal", right? Of course no human being knows everything about anything. But there is a reason that we assume that if a human being creates something, he should be the one who knows the most about it. Ideally, a creator kbows everything about the things he creates.

Ihedinobi:
Lol. Logicboy, your attempts at weaseling are very funny. Wasn't it you who was making a case for how God "does not know how to remember"? Didn't you mention forgetting only because the inability to forget made God not know how to remember anything? Now I'm the one changing the case? Lol. Stop lying, Logicboy.

Ihedinobi:
So we forget because God placed an inhibitor in our brains? Logicboy! God doesn't have to place any inhibitor anywhere. We forget because brain cells and nerve endings degenerate over time. It's also called aging, you know. And Christian philosophy explains it as a result of our first parents' disobedience that resulted in the entrance of decay or death.

And that makes more sense than God placing any inhibitor in our brains. I think you're being funny when you say that it makes less sense for God to create something He has no way of feeling. That's like saying that engineers can't create machines with abilities that they have no way of experiencing. Lo[/b]l

Ihedinobi fail:

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 [b]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.

Ihedinobi fail:
I think you're being funny when you say that it makes less sense for God to create something He has no way of feeling. [b]That's like saying that engineers can't create machines with abilities that they have no way of experiencing. Lo[/b]l

Ihedinobi:
Besides, God does not have need of recall anymore than an engineer has need of a cooling fan to prevent his brain from overheating. Lol. The engineer builds in the fan to provide the computer with something that he himself naturally has the superior of. The same way God builds in memory recall to provide us with sonething like His own omniscience. He knows how recall works because he designed it, therefore your argument that God's omniscience is a contradiction because He never forgets ans therefore does not have to recall is dead.

rationalmind:

presently on mobile. Pls ignore typos.

Let me even go with thet definition you supplied. I therefore define omniscient as one who knows everything about ALL THINGS. That exactly is what i find impossible.

When I say absolute knowledge of all things is an impossiblity, i believe its evident enough. Isnt it? Lol

and you still dont understand my position on choice. The guy who isnt a terrorist despite having terrorist parents is not a terrorists due to some conditioning he has been exposed to different from the conditioning of his parent. Some act out their parents conditioning, others act out friends conditioning, others act out cousins conditioning, everyone still acts out some sort of conditioning.

Lemme give you this example. I don't eat ogbolo soup because i didn't grow up eating it. Thats a conditioning. Lets now say I want to prove myself wrong saying people make choices, I can decide to go and eat ogbolo this night. The truth however is that, i decided to eat it because of what uve told me today about people making choices. Had we not discussed it, I wont even had thought of eating it. Thats exactly my point. It does appear like we are making choices but we are just acting out some sort of conditioning.

Ihedinobi:
Lol. Let's try an analogy. Imagine that information is the vast ocean, all the water in the world. Knowledge, that is the condition of possessing true information, would be containers, like natural craters, basins, channels, gullies, buckets, cups, spoons, baths, dams etc etc. The very existence of different sizes of containers means that there exists a size big enough to contain everything.

If you deny that that size of receptacle exists, then you must explain why you believe that any size of receptacle exists at all. There must be a full set for there to be subsets. Omniscience is the full set of all knowledge. Human intellect is a large array of subsets all that knowledge.

The condition of knowing exists, therefore the condition of knowing everything exists.

rationalmind:

alright.
You said you were indisposed the other day. How are you now? Hope better?

Ihedinobi:
Lol. Let's try an analogy. Imagine that information is the vast ocean, all the water in the world. Knowledge, that is the condition of possessing true information, would be containers, like natural craters, basins, channels, gullies, buckets, cups, spoons, baths, dams etc etc. The very existence of different sizes of containers means that there exists a size big enough to contain everything.

If you deny that that size of receptacle exists, then you must explain why you believe that any size of receptacle exists at all. There must be a full set for there to be subsets. Omniscience is the full set of all knowledge. Human intellect is a large array of subsets all that knowledge.

The condition of knowing exists, therefore the condition of knowing everything exists.

Logicboy03:


Who are the people that liked this comment? Seriously?


Information is limitless and infinite...........take for instance raw data of numbers- no one knows the last number because numbers are infinite. There are infinite calculations one can do. Pi (3.14) never ends.

To use an analogy of an ocean that would be limited by land barriers to represent the size of information, is quite FOOLISH

Joshthefirst: why are people punished for ra.pe and wrongdoing and stealing then? Or serial killing? Have they not been conditioned to do so by their external environments and have no freewill to refuse? Its not their fault then? We must blame conditioning.

Why should we even give a death sentence to any terrible crime?(According to human standards) Is it not because the said criminal is assumed to be resistant to positive conditioning to resist crime and must pay for his wrong choices?

rationalmind:

presently on mobile. Pls ignore typos.

Let me even go with thet definition you supplied. I therefore define omniscient as one who knows everything about ALL THINGS. That exactly is what i find impossible.

When I say absolute knowledge of all things is an impossiblity, i believe its evident enough. Isnt it? Lol

and you still dont understand my position on choice. The guy who isnt a terrorist despite having terrorist parents is not a terrorists due to some conditioning he has been exposed to different from the conditioning of his parent. Some act out their parents conditioning, others act out friends conditioning, others act out cousins conditioning, everyone still acts out some sort of conditioning.

Lemme give you this example. I don't eat ogbolo soup because i didn't grow up eating it. Thats a conditioning. Lets now say I want to prove myself wrong saying people make choices, I can decide to go and eat ogbolo this night. The truth however is that, i decided to eat it because of what uve told me today about people making choices. Had we not discussed it, I wont even had thought of eating it. Thats exactly my point. It does appear like we are making choices but we are just acting out some sort of conditioning.

Logicboy03:



I know you are empty but seriously? What is with this nonsense?

Why not quote the argument that I put in bold and denied making and also then quote my recent argument side by side to see if they are the same thing?

You have the nerve to talk about lies after claiming that the Stanford Encyclopedia of philosophy engaged in fallacious arguments on the issue of omniscience and freewill.

Dont worry, I will open another thread for your christian brothers to see how much of a liar you are




You missed the point and twisted my words on an issue not central to the topic we are debating.....its not worth it to continue....




Yawn



Wrong....a creator knows something about what he creates not everything.....Especially if you create something that has never existed before, you cant possibly know everything about it since it has never been tested before.

You saying that omniscience is ideal, is just arguing from ignorance. There is no evidence for such a claim nor logic to beef up the claim. You dont even know one omniscient creator, yet, you are arguing it is ideal. How many creators do you know that are omniscient? Why is it ideal? Is it ideal for improvement? No......Knowing how to do something and doing it are different things entirely.....

Even Darwin or Mendel would be surprised at the level of advancement that have been added to their theories.



How did I arrive at not remembering? It started from not being able to forget. Whatever, the point flies over your head. You cant see why I'm particular about using the word "forget"........one argues from a premise, not a conclusion...



SMH....wouldnt the brittle nerve endings and brain cells be the inhibitor? Try to have some sense, abeg.

@ bold....Also, you are so silly that you couldnt see that I was saying that one option is better than the other. I didnt say that God couldnt create humans that could forget since he cant forget- I gave another better way in which he could do so....


Funny enough you were the one arguing against what you said in bold- compare these two comments;






=============================




nonsense

Ihedinobi:
Evident how?


The fact that you "decide" means that a choice is made. Dude, you have not made any cogent argument.

Do you realize that where there is more than one "conditioning", the person in question has to choose which one to go with? Every argument you raise backfires on you, bro.

Logicboy03:


Who are the people that liked this comment? Seriously?


Information is limitless and infinite...........take for instance raw data of numbers- no one knows the last number because numbers are infinite. There are infinite calculations one can do. Pi (3.14) never ends.

To use an analogy of an ocean that would be limited by land barriers to represent the size of information, is quite FOOLISH

rationalmind:

Good!!!

I realised this exactly is the implication of saying people don't make choices. Why must anyone be punished for any offence.

The point however is, punishment still has to be metted out to anyone who commits crime because whatever "choice" they made might have affected others negatively. The essence of the punishment is to condition me and you to act out attitudes that will in no way negatively affect the lives of others.

rationalmind:

lol, ure so stubborn and you stubbornly hold on to your points no matter how its show to you they are wrong.

If someone acts out a particular conditioning, he didnt act it out because he chose to, he does so because there is something inherently special about that particular conditioning that makes him/her act it out.

Lets say you hate logicboy so much. Just put yourself in his shoes, you had the same parents he had, had the same brain, had every single experience logicboy ever had, thought exactly like him, went through exactly the same conditioning he went through. Do you think you would had been able to act differently than he's presently doing? Therein you find your answer no one makes any choice.