₦airaland Forum

asalimpo:
The narrator of the story, proves tht another reality outside the realm of d physcal senses,the spirit world exists.

Proves? Merely making a claim does not constitute proof of anything.

paulGrundy:
Btw there is proof of Gods existence, the problem is the kind of proof you are asking for. Miracles happening in our time are solid proof of Gods existence.

Could you define what you mean by miracles and give examples of miracles?

BraveGuy:
Did you read the article before making a comment? I doubt it.
Your argument is completely out-of-sync with the article.

Let me quote the man again:
"What is unique in my case is that I am, as far as scientific records show, the only person to have travelled to this heavenly dimension with the cortex in complete shut-down, while under minute observation throughout.

There are medical records for every minute of my coma, and none of them show any indication of brain activity. In other words, as far as neuroscience can say, my journey was not something happening inside my head.

Plenty of scientists have a lot of difficulty with this statement. My experience undermines their whole belief system." - Dr Eben Alexander.

So was he able to map the time duration of his out of body experience to "every minute" of his coma? Can he guarantee that his out of body experience did not occur moments before he slipped into coma or moments before he recovered from it?

Given the subjective nature of his OOB experience, can we verify the objectivity of his claims? How do we know he's not exaggerated the whole experience?

Asking atheists to explain this is like me claiming to be superman and asking you to prove otherwise. It is quite impossible to prove a negative, isn't it?

Misogynist2014:
Your logic is logically flawed. All what I gained from this write up is that its possible that a design exists without a designer. You capped it up by using irrelevant examples.

It is not enough to throw statements around, highlight the flaws in his logic and point to the irrelevant examples, and tell exactly why they are irrelevant.

Misogynist2014:
Science itself that accuses religion that God(an infinite creature) must have been created, argue that it is not LOGICAL to say matter cannot be created or destroyed, just because its impossible on EARTH, when justifying the Big bang.

Science is agnostic, and accuses religion of nothing. But listen to yourself call god an infinite creature (without proof, no less), and then stop short of saying god isn't created. Where's the logical coherence in your argument? I suggest you look up the relationship between the words "creature" and "create".

Yes, it is NOT logical to say "matter cannot be created or destroyed" because that is an outdated postulation. By replacing/equating "matter" with "energy", science has since self-corrected that notion as it always does when new light is shed on any topic of interest.

Misogynist2014:
Can you see for yourself? Is this not synonymous to the Christian arguement that its impossible to compare human nature to that of a Spirit. In fact, does it not take much faith to believe that a complex universe like this has no designer?

It is not synonymous at all. Science has phenomenological evidence for its claims. Much less can be said of the Christian argument which is based solely on faith. No one rejects that anything is designed. We reject the lazy attribution of design to false (imaginary) designers/deities.

Misogynist2014:
Look at yourself, and nature around you, look around again(if possible, go outside to view nature), are we not to complex to be a design without a designer? Science is searching for the cure of ebola and AIDs, how can a design without a designer guarantee a cure?

Again, no one rejects a designer. You seem to think your idea of god (a personal intelligent designer) is the only kind of designer that can exist. Read on the forces of nature and on entropy.

The emboldened question doesn't make any sense at all. Could you clarify?

Misogynist2014:
If God doesn't exist, how did magic come into existence? One guy was stüpid enough to tell me magic doesn't exist. Another fööl told me if magic exist, then its independent of gods. I laughed. I told them, go to sango worshipers, with them, your silly questions are easily solved.

Since you're not as stu.pid as those guys, surely, you care to share how "magic" (whatever it is) proves the existence of your god?

Misogynist2014:
The Bible is a very powerful historical record, telling us how mankind was created after the GAP THEORY http://www.jesus-is-savior.com /Evolution%20Hoax /gap_theorists_defended.htmto enjoy and worship God on earth and how sin came into the world, which created suffering and death both in human and animal world. It tells us how mankind went after gods, who tell them to do abominable things like human sacrifice and killing of twins. It tells us how men like Abraham, Istrael served God, which led God to prefer the Israelites and how God dealt severely with Egypt, how Israelites crossed the Red Sea, and how the great wall of Jerico fell(all of which are traceable in history.)
It tells us about how Israelites also went after gods, which made God angry, in which they were severely dealt with, from invasion of Egypt, to Babylonian siege, to Roman siege and finally the HOLOCAUST. It tells us about a wonderful event which happend over 2000 years ago, when God sent his Son to the world, the gory which he passed through and the promise of the second coming.

The bible is stuff of fairytale that tells us stories of a god nonbelievers are glad doesn't exist. It tells us of a god who asked his faithful, Abraham, to sacrifice his son, who asked Moses to ravage people's lands, properties, kill children, animals etc. A war mongering, blood-sucking, malevolent and disgusting god. A god that would command atrocities that make the holocaust seem like a love story, just to make a stupid point.

Misogynist2014:
Many argue that there are many gods, but let me give you a simple method of eliminating these gods, their account of genesis(what are you building if your foundation is very weak), if they are made by hands(a true God can't be made with human hands), If they desire fetish things like blood(true God does not require the blood of his creatures) , If their book is highly contradictory e.g. Islam's book is highly contradictory, from the use of We for a supposed monotheist God, to telling us that Jesus was neither killed nor crucified but another person was, even to tell us that Jesus did not call himself the Son of God(Muhammad was born 600AD), without telling us why people wanted to kill the one who healed and cured them of their sickness. You can read quran for yourself or check this incriminating link out http://www.answering-islam.org /authors/rogers/pronouns1.html.

I wonder why you haven't applied the same litmus to your religion. "True god does not require blood of his creatures" you say? Here's a list of BLOODY atrocities committed by your "true" god. What's the other one again? "Highly contradictory" holy books. Dude, have you even read the bible? Here, I found you a ginormous list of biblical contradictions which you can verify at your convenience.

I just hope you're not another hypocrite, and you stay true to your criteria for determining false gods.

Misogynist2014:
Do you have any proof to back your believe? If you don't, then its your religion.

For your mind now, you have done a Q.E.D.

I cannot see how they are not aware that the rule is the diabolic antithesis of the principle behind online forums.

Dear Seun and Mynd44,

If you're going to move every topic that touches upon Islam to the Islamic section, then it appeals to reason that you make the Islamic section open to all, because not everybody that wishes to discuss about Islam is Muslim.

It is preposterous that I cannot contributed to a topic I opened, except I convert to Islam. Either change the rules of the section or stop moving topics to the Islamic section for ambiguous and arbitrary reasons.

Thanks!

Mintayo:
Where is mydd44? Can this please be "catapulted" tothe islamic section??

"Islam for Muslims: A forum for Muslims to share their faith. Muslims only please, even the moderators are Muslims"

It says Muslims only, and I'm not Muslim anymore, so why should it be catapulted there?
------------------------
Mynd44 why?
------------------------
AlBaqir , I should like to engage you, nevertheless, it appears Mac, in his infinite wisdom, has determined I cannot make any useful contribution to this group. As a result I've been banned. The best I can do its edit my previous posts.

I left religion because of the many inconsistencies Ahmed vagueness found therein.

Can they be wrong?

This question, as simple as it sounds, did have a profound impact on my religious outlook.

Many Muslims of the Sunni sect will vouch for the veracity of the sahih hadiths, citing the meticulous effort that was invested in the chains of narrations by the duo of Muhamad ibn Bukhari and Muslim ibn al-Hajjaj to produce two of the most revered scriptures, second only to the Quran in status, in Sunni Islam.

The meticulous attention paid to the chains of narrations, otherwise known as Isnad, was so impressive to the greatest Islamic scholars of the time of compilation, that in spite of the fact that these works were compiled some 200 years after the death of the prophet, they still thought it was accurate. One of them being Ahmad ibn Hanbal, the initiator of the hanbali school of Sunni jurisprudence (one of the four main schools).

For all the meticulousness paid to the Isnad though, the relative ease with which contradictions and inconsistencies can be found in these hadiths tell another story. My thought is that not as much attention was paid to the content of the hadiths, otherwise called the matan, as was given to the Isnad.

The implications of this being that the prophet was either a very inconsistent person of questionable character, or the hadiths had been corrupted over time. Neither of these implications is a tenable proposition to the Sunni, as it casts aspersions on the person of the prophet, or the veracity of sahih hadiths, our even worse, both. Either way, the resulting response is the effervescing of the foundation of their faith. In fact this is exactly what happened to my Islamic faith.

As it turns out, I had built my notion of god on questionable sources. The moment this fact became apparent to me, I veered out of the fold at a rate faster than the half-life of Seaborgium

My question to Sunnis is: Why do you still hang on to sahih hadiths as sacrosanct in spite of the conspicuous inconsistencies in them?

Take 20 (base10) for example, its BasePI projection is a complicated but provable rebasing of the following numbers 1, 6-PI and 20-6PI.

I worked it out to be ~130.2(basePI) after I became a bit jobless

SNCOQ3:
The value of PI is objective but the choice of representing it in 4 decimal places (3.1415) is subjective. How does this remotely imply that 1+1=2 is subjective?

This is another representation of PI:
3.141592653589793238462643383279502884197169399375105820974944592307816406286...

Sigh! I don't even know where to start with you. I wanted to teach you about the ontology and epistemology of objectivity because you obviously don't know the difference (you can read on it, or if I have time, I'll get to it later), but your vile bastardisation of mathematics is more painful to accept than your juvenile musings. First of all, our crude representation of PI has nothing to do with its objectivity or otherwise, it is rather because it is an irrational number. The only reason you cannot represent pie rationally has more to do with the limitations of the base10 system than an inherent property of pie. This means I can define a new numbering system called (BasePI) where, to the astonishment of your primitive maths knowledge, PI would assume a completely rational value. In this system the value of PI would be 10, and I can prove it with perfect mathematical convergence, but I neither have the time nor the patience to type out such a proof. The reason such a system isn't used is that the irrationality of PI (base10) is such a small price to pay compared to the fact that most rational numbers will become irrational in the (basePI) system. Take 20 (base10) for example, its BasePI projection is a complicated but provable rebasing of the following numbers 1, 6-PI and 20-6PI. Now, using existing mathematical conventions, can you tell me what PI^2 is in BasePI?

On the objectivity of PI, NO, it's not objective. It is descriptive. There is no entity called PI, independent of what it describes, which is the unchanging ratio between the circumference of a circle and its diameter. It's like saying the word cup is objective. That, of course, is an absurd proposition. If there didn't exist people that spoke the language whereby "cup" is used to describe a handheld liquid holding device or any other concept, there would be no need for it to exist, nor would it. Likewise, the the word PI and the value of PI are subjective and only useful to the beholders of the lingual framework within which it exists (e.g mathematics). Another language where PI exists is Greek. So if I were to be a Greek literate and I wished to transliterate "Pond" to Greek alphabet, it would be "πονδ" and only you will tell me PI, π, is objective.

The notion of PI is objective; If your knowledge of its true value is not limited, please provide the actual value: _______________

Non-sequitur

We are clearly not mates. Where are the self-contradictions? Olodo.

-You ignored the first word in the starting line: Some mathematical models are built on conjectures...
-Then you skipped the line between the lines you dubiously highlighted:
...But established models are nothing but abstractions of the real world....
in a failed attempt to prove a self-contradiction that the "trinity is both true and a conjecture".

How dishonest can it get.

I didn't ignore "Some" because I had no need to ignore it...check again, it was emboldened!

Do you mean to say "established models" are 'true' models, 'conjectured' models or both? If established models are 'true', then conjectured models cannot be established models. If they are conjectured, they cannot be true (until proven, in which case they cease to be conjectured) and if you mean to say both true models and conjectured models can be established models, then that's a meaningless statement because we're only interested in the truth or otherwise of your model. So, is trinity a true mathematical model or a conjectured one? If it's a true model, can you present its mathematical proof?

lol...<shake head in disbelief> You are the one who created a false analogy(1+1+1=3=1x1x1=1) to debunk how I represented the trinity. Strawman.

You should shake your head for your shaky mathematical foundation.

According to trinity,
Father, f = god; son, s, = god; spirit, h, = god.
From mathematical axioms f+s+h=god+god+god=3god
therefore, it is not mathematically possible to define a set g={f,s,h} such that the sum of its elements is god. Rather, if you take away s from the god set, you'll be left with a subset {f,h}. Do you wish to say {f,h} is an incomplete representation of set g?

In as much as you desperately want the statement to be false, it is not. Perhaps it could be better represented- but not false.
BTW, 'logical elegance' is only a work of art, it doesn't prove or disprove anything e.g:

81 = 34 is elegant and true.
81 = 3x3x3x3 is inelegant but true.
decompose the elegant E=MC2(that is, if you can) and see how fast it gets ugly, does that makes it false?

I'm not desperate to prove your Triniterian logic false, it's empirically false by mathematical standards, no matter how much you wished it weren't. But if you wish to believe it's true in some other realm, be my guest. You may find numerology an attractive avenue to explore, just don't bring it into the realm of mathematics.

Oh, and I'm ignoring your foolish question because you have no prescriptive jurisdiction over what I choose to consider 'logical elegance'.

Lol. You threw out the aspect that explains oneness in a marital relationship to cook up a fallacy. Enjoy.

Is this imaginary oneness of yours a mathematical statement or a cultural cliche?

---I rest my case ---

Yeah, rest your case; and while you're at it, also rest your head before you experience segmentation fault from your self-imposed cognitive dissonance.

wiegraf:
As the shitfy agent above suggests (which kind agent of allah speaks like that?!)

SNCOQ3:
Yes, maths is the language of the universe but its usefulness to represent reality is limited by our understanding of reality.

OMG!!! Did you just stylishly imply the subjectivity of mathematics? What happened to the "1+1=2 Objective" statement you made earlier on? Abomination...tu fiakwa!!!

SNCOQ3:
Some mathematical models are built on conjectures- 'truth and lie' cannot be ascribed to such models. But established models are nothing but abstractions of the real world. The same can be said about the models we use to represent the Trinity be it in words, graphic symbols or with mathematical notations.

The description of the Trinity in the bible is multifaceted. Its a true but very difficult concept to represent fully, and that is because we have not fully comprehend it and will never do. We only resort to analogies to describe it e.g

Mate, do you understand the difference between conjectures and true statements? In one stretch, you call the trinity a conjecture, and not one sentence after and what I can imagine will would have been a painful fumble through self-contradiction, it magically becomes true...ahn-ahn now, bros.

SNCOQ3:
We only resort to false analogies to describe it e.g

God is three persons: 1+1+1 = 3
Three persons is one God: 1x1x1 = 1
The three persons are distinct A{f,s,h}

You're entitled to establish your own Trinitarian mathematical formalisms whereby 1+1+1=3=1x1x1=1 and live your life as though it were the truth, but don't abuse millennia old mathematical formalisms and pretend what you're saying makes any sense. Trinity is a grotesquely false mathematical statement that flies in the face of all logical elegance.

SNCOQ3:
In what we understand as 'the principle of headship' The Father is God, Jesus is God, Holy Spirit is God yet one (composite unity not solitary unity) just like a man and his wife are co-equal in nature, two distinct entities yet are one: I can only represent this with geometric symbols.

A husband and his wife are two persons, that is, 1+1=2, nowhere on earth is a husband and his wife seen as one person, except (s)he marries (her/him)self. Stop using silly cultural clichés to commit fallacies of equivocation as though the statement has any mathematical meaning.

SNCOQ3:
Is this a diversionary tactic or what?

1. The Trinitarian doctrine does not affirm your claim: How can "3 Persons in 1 God, 1 God in 3 Persons" be represented as 1+1+1?
If this is how you think, I don't see how you can discover or formulate any original scientific/engineering theory of your own.

2. This thread is not about the doctrine of the Trinity.

It's not diversionary, it's a mockery of your hypocrisy. You claim 1+1+1=3 is objective, but you also believe father is god, son is god holy spirit is god and all three are equal to god, not three gods, one god. And this too is objective. This is a mathematical aberration which means contrary to your claim, you don't really believe in the objectivity of the sentence 1+1+1=3.

SNCOQ3:
OK.


1+1+1 = 3 Objective
1X1X1 = 1 Objective

Trinitarian logic states otherwise. In Trinitarian logic, 1+1+1=1 Objective. There cannot be two objective ways to understand the same statement, no?

Martian:
They don't mean the same thing because the first question is about the desirability of the action and the second question is about advisability.
We don't ought to do everything we desire and everything we ought to do isn't desirable.

You should answer Homer's questions now and quit rephrasing questions and dodging. Watching you flail and "lolololol" is fun though.

Later MrAnony1 will claim he's not the one converting is to ought and whatnots to whatwhat.

MrAnony1:
There is nothing vague about that answer.

It is a statement, not an answer because there was no question. And it is vague...So far everybody with whom you're having this discussion has been asking you for clarification since 19gbogboro and you have refused...like an artful dodger

MrAnony1:
Good so you agree with me that if something ought to be then there must be a purpose for which it ought to be.

Yes, but clarify your previous statement.

MrAnony1:
I don't have to tell you what the purpose is just yet. The point that follows from the above in my argument is that if there is a purpose, then there must be a mind purposing. Do you agree?

You don't have to tell me anything. However, we're having an adult discussion here, I hope. It's borderline haughty to postpone my question and then require me to answer yours, so you first...or explain why you don't have to tell me that purpose. Don't just prescribe to me as if I'm a child.

MrAnony1:
Lol, I see. So you believe that it is evil to eat other living things yet you believe that you ought to eat them. How come?

So you believe that it is evil to allow a person get robbed yet you believe that you ought not to help her. How come?

Lol...the examples you gave are fallacious (If you can't see how yet, ask me and I'll explain).

The examples I gave are evidently fallacious in light of your statement, but they are not vague, and I find nothing inherently fallacious in them, which is why I need you to clarify your statement...or show me the fallacy in them.

MrAnony1:
Which statement exactly are you referring to?

Good is that which we ought to do.

MrAnony1:
Lol which reasonable attempts do you speak of? The ones that deny the objective nature of truth or the ones that want to magically derive an ought from an is?

The only person that has pertinaciously insisted on transmogrifying "is" to "ought" is you.

MrAnony1:
I have read it and my arguments are not vague at all.

So, surely you read the part about "ought" being a prescription for a specified goal? Hence, if you say "good is that which we ought to do" you know it should be predicated on some purpose. Tell us what that purpose is! Do you mean it is what we ought to do: If we are to be happy, if we are to make it to heaven, if we want Sunny Ade to sing a Christmas Carroll? Either you define "that which we ought to do" or you define the goal of your prescription.

I can prove the vagueness of your statement with the following examples:
Example 1: I believe it is good not to interfere in the lives of other living things, but I also believe I ought to interfere in their lives by eating them. To me, this good=/= ought to do

Example 2: A thief mugs a woman's handbag at gunpoint. I believe it is good to stop that thief, but I'd be stupid to try and do so, so I know I ought not do it. Again good=/= ought to do.

These are real life examples. So clarify what you mean by that vague statement because even though you've spent the last few pages insisting it is self-evident, it is not at all clear what it means. Your alternative would be to acknowledge that good is an undefinable, in which case your statement is meaningless.

Joshthefirst:


Sorry sir. This is ranting.


The second law states that the universe tends to increasing entropy. Every act of organization and advancement requires directed energy. Energy can only be directed by a director.

That is my stance.

So how does the organization of evolution take place?

It is possible for entropy to cause localised order. Take the galaxies for example, their symmetries look ordered, yet they emerge purely from entropy.

SmellMyFart:
You must've heard about the like poles of a magnet repelling each other and unlike poles clinging to each other. Same goes in the electrical field with respect to charge.

In nature/biology, man is a living organism and so are animals. If this practise is right, why haven't any animal be it domestic or wild indulge in such act? I'm not trying to juxtapose man with mere animal cos it's certain we're the greatest of all organisms but in situations like this, the most silly evidence can be useful.

You must have heard of naturally occurring hydrogen (H2), oxygen (O2) and nitrogen (N2) molecules. Heck, you must have heard of H2O <--- Omg, what manner of violation of the natural order are elements playing on us? Abomination!!!

MrAnony1:
Lololol...this guy you are funny.

First you refuse to answer direct questions then you throw out multiple questions and claim that I am afraid of answering them. That won't work.

The questions I asked you still remain.

1. Do you agree or disagree that that which is good is that which we ought to do?
2. Do you agree or disagree that if something ought to be, then there must be a purpose for which it ought to be?

If you will not answer me, I will not answer you.

I have to say, MrAnony, your argument is excruciatingly pathetic and bereft of meaning! You throw out a vague statement and rebuff every request to clarify your statement so that you can slither and undulate around reasonable attempts to engage with you. It's befuddling where you're headed with this.

I suggest you read up the [url=http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Is%E2%80%93ought_problem]Wikipedia article[/url] on the "Is-ought" dilemma because vague arguments aren't arguments at all.

BossTtdiamonds:
Put simply, It will have it's consequence towards the argument (if there will be any).... Your Belief and the Moniker..that is..

That can only mean you don't have honest answers to my simple questions! Surely, the proof and motive of your god's existence are immutable to the possibility that my name could be biliki, akpos, yerima or john; or that I'm a devil worshiper, humanist, Hindu or muslim?

You don't have to answer my questions. Your points are excruciatingly juvenile, and this conversation is becoming mildly irritating.

BossTtdiamonds:
It actually does has it's influence, for instance your Moniker states "agentofallah". We won't want a convolution in our argument, I do hope you understand my statement.

Dude, if you're really suggesting that my belief and handle ID had/have any consequence on yours; and even more outrageous, that this will convolute an imaginary argument, how can I take you seriously?

DavidKissinger:
Wow! This is where I stroke your ego.

You Atheists are so smart.

Never mind my ego my lad, asking the right questions isn't beyond any of us. But are we honest enough to acknowledge our limitations when presented with the questions?

BossTtdiamonds:
You could start by comparin' Design and Evolution....
Which seems more logical.. Base your assertions on the complexity of man, natural constants, morals, intelligence.. E.t.c

Evolution is design by nature. Perhaps you wish to compare evolution and intelligent, purposive design?

By definition, any naturalistic/materialistic proposition for the origin of species, however flawed, is statistically less improbable than a supernatural alternative. So, your task is to show that this level of complexity is not naturally possible.

BossTtdiamonds:
You're not in a position to ask such questions.

I have sound deductive and cognitive skills, and I'm able to articulate my thoughts with lucidity. The way I see it, I'm in a position to ask any question I like.

BossTtdiamonds:
To answer such question, we'd have to know what you believe in first..

I don't think my beliefs had the remotest influence on the decision you made concerning yours, so you don't need to know what I believe in any more than you need to know what I had for breakfast.

BossTtdiamonds:
What do you believe in..??

If you really wish to know, I believe in me.

DavidKissinger:
On being a 'murderer'. What if they were absolutely necessary? I'm not all-knowing, HE is. But have you ever had a pet? let's say a dog or a cat.. How does it react when you try to clip its nails? Defensive? Violent? Why? Because in its defined knowledge, it thinks you're trying to hurt him. Whereas, you're not. Your intention is for its greater good.

Assuming your analogy is appropriate, is it really the "greater good" of the pet or its owner that necessitates the clipping of its claws? You could have used a better analogy, like the sick baby and doctor's syringe, to a more potent effect.

Regardless of whichever version you use though, your analogy still fails on one very important count: It presupposes the existence of the god whose very existence is being scrutinised. For your analogy to be applicable, you first have to show that:

1) like the pet owner, this god actually exists.

2) this god requires you to worship it.

3) this god does not harbour any evil intentions. After all, there's nothing that stops a pet owner from harbouring evil intensions towards their pet.

Surely, asking us to make all three assumptions would be asking for too much?!

Ubenedictus:
1st, you are right, the use of the word "before" makes the statement almost contradictory since before is used in relation to time. I used the word "before" for lack of a better term. Maybe "prior to" will be a better term. God existed in eternity prior to time.

Quick, off your head, come up with a synonym for "before"... What? Did I hear you say "prior to"? No, "prior to" does not help your cause...still a function of time!

Ubenedictus:
God is pure act (actus purus), thus in his knowing and willing there is no transition from potency to act, no habitus, no sequence

individual wills or knowledge, no progress from known to unknown. His knowing is neither potential nor habitual, neither successive or discursive. God knows all in one single indivisible act and he wills by one single successionless act of willing. Does that statisfy your question?

I don't follow at all. What is the habitus sequence of the three horned blue colourless unicorn with a discursive potential of 20eV? Does that clarify my question?

Ubenedictus:
He isn't subject to time, infact, he made the choice to create even before time began, he created time, he transcends time.


He already has his plan, his choices are made, to saved those who are saved and punished those who are punished. That is another peck of his prescience. Now in that plan he has factored all possible possibilities and all free choices.

Of course you don't realise the paradox inherent in creating "before" time. The word 'before' is inextricable from time. Saying god chose to create before time is analogous to saying "there was a time when time didn't exist".

Add to that, the conundrum of choice you've created for god. See, if god already knows everything that will happen, by definition, god does not have an active role (choice) in it. For if god, out of choice, changes what it already knew, it clearly didn't know everything in the first place. So, can it really be said that an omniscient has made a choice? For emphasis, I could present such a paradox in the form of a question: Is it possible to know everything you're going to do and still call them choices?

Rilwayne001:
*Nitwit sighted*

I smell fart...did a prat open it's cavum?

Rilwayne001:
and they couldnt answer this question

Hahaha, see aproko o! You nkor, you answer your own?

Smallville10:
HAHAHA VERY FUNNY ITS NO USE U ARE AN AGENT OF ALLAH SO THATS THE PROBLEM. YOU PROBABLY WOULD NEVER AGREE

Agree to your bogus science? You got that right boss, probably never!