₦airaland Forum

EMILO2STAY:
yes

John 6:39And this is the Father's will who has sent me, that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

If he knows from the onset that I won’t make heaven so what’s the essence of the freewill he’s giving me?

And why does he need you to convince me to make heaven since he already know that I won’t make it?

EMILO2STAY:
.

You are still running around in circles here saying the same over and over.
I already said before that even if God is omniscience that doesn't mean his omniscience influences the choices of man. Yes he is all powerful and knowing yet what has to be had to be without God influencing the outcome.
From the beginning he saw that man will fall yet he a way of salvation for from the same beginning.

From the begining he has seen those who will be disobedient and reject his salvation and command by choice, This does not mean he made them that way so they can go to hell For he does not delight in the death of the wicked. Rather seeing that they will be disobedient provided a way of salvation from the very begining to save them but they made a choice of rejecting it as God cannot make your choice for you.

Gods foreknowledge is an attribute of his sovereignty this is why he always makes a way of salvation. Foreknowledge does not equal to influencing or manipulating in any way. This is what you have to understand and stop going around in circles.
He knew you will be disobedient and made a way of salvation to still save you yet when you were born as a grown adult known ng fully well the meaning of your actions rejected his salvation and walked according to your own heart. God cannot make your choices for you. So don't blame God for the choices you make knowing fully well what you do.

ok, Does God know the total number of people that will make heaven from the onset?

Please answer the question, don’t give me long explanations.

There’s absolutely nothing wrong if you masturbate.

EMILO2STAY:
the bone of contention here are those two options so what are you talking about? You have asked and I answered, but I have asked instead of providing answer your busy beating about the bush.

If you disagree with my answer then explain how the two mutually exclusive bone of contention Can influence one another. If you can't then keep quiet and stop talking about what you have no answer or idea about.

If an omniscience had a plan, he knows this plans will work and later says this plans also depend on the choice some other people makes. That’s logically incorrect.

Everything is suppose to be certain in a plan extrapolated by an omniscience. If he has known me before I was born, he should know if I will go to hell or not, it doesn’t have to depend on the choice I make. Since he knows this already, he would have planned for this outcome.

If an omniscience has to wait for me to make my choices before making his plans then his omniscience nature should be questioned.

Stop running from pillar to post asking fallacious questions.

EMILO2STAY:
the bone of contention here are those two options so what are you talking about? You have asked and I answered, but I have asked instead of providing answer your busy beating about the bush.

Of you disagree with my answer then explain how the two mutually exclusive bone of contention. Can influence one another. If you can't then keep quiet and stop talking about what you have no answer or idea about.

The bone of contention wasn’t even two, you created the yes or no option based on one aspect of an omniscience which you feel comfortable to argue about, you did without first exhausting and understanding all the features of an omniscience.

You stylishly eroded the definition of an omniscience, created another argument with a yes or no option and what me to stay there. That’s fallacious.


It’s simple, omniscience knows everything which means he knows the outcome of everything before it even happens. If one is destined to go to hell, an omniscience will know before it happens and it won’t depends on the choices that person makes. The plans of an omniscience cannot change, that plan is suppose to be precise and accurate and no form of freewill and choice will influence it. If one would go to hell and The omniscience had a plan already and knows this before even the person is born then the person’s choice should not be able to change the plan.

Stop committing fallacies upandan and tackle this points I have raised.

EMILO2STAY:
then that means you don't know what your talking about.

You just committed another fallacy.
Black and white fallacy, you do it and you don’t even know.

Learn how to present your argument else you will be busy arguing back and forth on this platform without meeting objective or convincing anybody. Unless many you just like unwarranted argument.

EMILO2STAY:
then that means you don't know what your talking about.

see another fallacy you committed

EMILO2STAY:
pls answer this, does foreknowledge influence choices, yes or no. If yes then explain?

You should really learn how to present argument. You just committed another fallacy of black and white.
You cannot ask me direct questions and limit the options to just two. It’s simple, omniscience knows everything, he knows the final outcome of everything, he doesn’t have to give choice. No need beating about the bush.

Learn how to argue first.

EMILO2STAY:
ok maybe you should try to explain how omniscience can influence choices.

Nope, I’m done arguing.

Doesn’t make any more sense. We won’t get anywhere. You keep committing fallacies.

EMILO2STAY:
that's what am talking about. That God is omniscience does not influence the choices of man.

This statement is a complete oxymoron and you don’t have to sound unreasonable in your attempt to defend this.

Read the statement again carefully and think about what you just typed.

“God is omniscience does not influence the choices of man” it doesn’t make any sense.

Think about this statement very well.

EMILO2STAY:
that's what am talking about. That God is omniscience does not influence the choices of man.

Omniscience means he knows the precise outcome. Precise outcomes doesn’t come with choices, it has to be only one definite option.
You are confusing everyone.

I don’t think you are getting it.

If I know that Barcelona game is gonna start by 9pm, it’s a precise outcome and doesn’t have an option. If any second option comes, it begs to question the accuracy of my knowledge.

You can’t be omniscience and at the same time be giving options.

Dtruthspeaker:
I asked how here because I rebut that it does not. So Prove the how?



You do know that man has very limited moves he can freely make?



You do realise that You are Talking about a God who made this house that we call the world and that has catered for millions and millions of people and animals over thousands of years?

Is there anything that He can not Do, if He wills it?

What has all the statement you made got to do with the topic?

We are doubting the omniscience nature of something, you have not proven that and your are circulating another argument?

Bro, that’s not how to present your points. You have not answered anything here, you have not made a single point.

You have successfully committed a fallacy of special pleading.

You have to first of all convince me of his omniscience nature before presenting the argument of what he can and cannot do.

Dtruthspeaker:
How?

Read my article completely. I can’t be repeating statements. It’s very stressful doing that.

I buttressed my point in this same post you quoted.

EMILO2STAY:
no you did not, but however you have given them a choice to make.

Them now knowing fully well the consequences of eating the candy now have the free will by themselves to disobey you or obey.

Can “omniscience” and “choices” not be mutually exclusive?

I am surprise as to how to tend to proof that an omniscience nature includes to ability to predict between two options.

EMILO2STAY:
1.
foreknowledge does not mean coerced or forced or compelled. Foreknowledge only shows his omniscience. This does not mean that he influences the actions and inaction of a person.

God has set his standards for man to follow and only does who follow in these standards will be counted as righteous. Its like a father in a home with several kids (some obedient while some disobedient) who give a command that should not be disobeyed before leaving the house, and when he got back the obedient ones kept his command while the disobedient ones did not and got punished for their disobedience.

Would you call the father a wicked confused man who knows his children will disobey him yet he made the command?.

He definitely knows thoes who are his

John 6:39And this is the Father's will who has sent me, that of all that he has given me I should lose nothing, but should raise it up again at the last day.

Foreknowledge doesn’t even need force or coerce in the first place. Unless you want to change the definition. Foreknowledge has one option, doesn’t depend on freewill and doesn’t warrant multiple outcomes.

My father doesn’t have an omniscience nature hence cannot accurately predict my actions, he reserves the right to be surprise and react accordingly when I shock him with my actions, so the comparison is totally out of context and it’s a straw man’s fallacy. It’s not addressing the point of “omniscience” that was initially raised.

Trying to buttress your point with a bible verse is also a fallacy of petitio principii (begging the question) because the Bible in itself is God’s words and already assumes that the argument you presented is true and conclusive. It cannot be used as a basis to counter oppositions, it’s basically doesn’t present any logical point in this debate.

EMILO2STAY:
wether he knows or not does not change the fact that you are responsible for your actions. God never forces or compels any to take the actions they take. So therefore you are solely responsible for your actions and will account for it because you knew that what you were doing is wrong and you still did it,.. Tell me who is to be blamed for that, you or God?

First of all, we have to be reasonable here.
1. A freewill package flaws the omniscience nature of god, it becomes a prediction game since probabilities have been involved.

2. It’s impossible to make a concrete plan while regarding freewill as a factor. This means that god cannot stick to a particular plan. He’s guessing and not sure of the final outcome.

3. Regarding these two points, god is currently not even sure of how many people will make heaven, he doesn’t have a figure to plan with for now. That’s a big blow to his omniscience nature. He is depending solely on the activities of his preachers to garner followers for him. He doesn’t know anything for sure currently. He’s not even sure you will make heaven finally.

Is this the kind of god you are following?

feedthenation:
God has given us the free will option to decide whom we will give our lives to.

Does it mean that he doesn’t know where everyone’s freewill will end up?
Because it’s impossible to give freewill and still know the outcome of the freewill. Freewill cannot work with an initial divine plan.

This statement logically has flawed the “omniscience” concept of god. Unless you don’t want to be logical about it.

EMILO2STAY:
the fact that God is omniscient does not change the fact that humans choose their own path by themselves. His omniscient does not compel anyone to do what they do.

Christ knew that Judas iscariot would betray him, he did not manipulate Judas to do his will but Judas chooses to do so by himself of his own freewill knowing fully well what he was doing.

The fact that God is omniscient and all knowing does not mean that man can do what ever he likes with out judgment because his own conscience convicts him of his sins.

That means God actually know who will most likely not follow the divine plans from the onset, he’s just playing games with everyone.

Because I don’t understand how freewill and divine plans can work together.

hakeem4:
Then god cannot be omniscient and give us free will at the same time. It is logically incoherent. Since the Abrahamic god claims that he is omniscient and offers us free will, this type of god would be difficult to conceive

Does God know or does He not know that a certain individual will be good or bad? If thou sayest 'He knows', then it necessarily follows that the man is compelled to act as God knew beforehand how he would act, otherwise, God's knowledge would be imperfect.…"

See logic.
Your thinking pattern is apt.

wickedtuna:
lmao that was funny.

If i have dealt with you for decades, i should be able to figure out your tendency to be stupid and either cut ties with you or put measures in place to address it as a boss, either way i am complacent.

The option is yours if you want to continue being a global almajiri.

The bone of contention here is if WHO is doing their job of helping stupid nations, that is the core responsibility and they are doing just well at that.

wickedtuna:
imagine if i was aiding you so you wont think..lol

If i was always cooking your meals, would you bother learning to cook? Truth is, their support is doing more harm.

Its not WHO’s problme that we are stupid. Their job is to help stupid people.

Whether we want stop being stupid is our problem not theirs.

Sleekmedulla:
What do you expect when the US has lost 100,000 citizens in less than 3 months due to misinformation by the WHO. The WHO obviously didn’t operate as an independent entity whilst investigating the nature of the virus as regards its transmission rate instead they blindly swallowed the information given to them by the Chinese.

WHO didn’t misinform U.S, Trump Ignored every warning and he’s currently trying to shift blame to appease voters.

I

wickedtuna:
its start by being independent. That we must learn.


We love being pitied in this country, it is almost orgasmic for the Nigerian people when we here somebody donated monies like we are ever going to benefit from it.

This doesn’t overruled the enormous role WHO has played to cushion the effects from our inability to think.
Whether we will think and do our homework is another topic.

wickedtuna:
So if we then let unregulated organisation like the WHO take over our thought process, what is the guarantee they wont ultimately take over our country when those funding these organisations have ulterior motives ?

then think so you don’t depend on them. But as of the now, you can’t do without WHO until we start doing our homework.

wickedtuna:
lol you can say what you want sir but it still doesn't change the question. Do you think as a nation we would be better if we didnt depend on aids that come from bodies no one regulates?

we can’t be better as a nation until we start thinking.
Your inability to grasp the role of WHO in sustaining relative fair healthcare in Africa shows that you don’t think.

wickedtuna:
what exactly have we benefited from the WHO?

Did they improve our healthcare ? Or is it because the send us aid?

Inform yourself dude. Don’t be laughably illiterate.

Righteousness89:
Bravo!

GOD BLESS President Donald Trump for this Bold Move!

This is the Man that suits these times!

Go on Trump!

No Weapon formed or Fashioned against you will Prosper!

This one no get sense

Yustash001:
My Alma mata....


but truth be told...viewing this pictures, you may think it's one heaven on earth but on visiting the school you may be disappointed

this pictures are not fine at all. It’s embarrassing seeing a university look this way.

Check out pictures of oau, UI and Unilag

That’s a gaboon viper, that snakes has the most painful bite of all venomous snakes.

onlyfacts:
1. Making new vaccines has a lot to do with immunology (which doesn't support evolution)and a host of other disciplined but they must all understand immulogy unless their vaccines won't work and not evolution.
2. Antibiotics development is beyond the scope of evolution. It's has a lot to do with pharmaceutics, pharmaceutical chemistry, pharmaceutical microbiology, clinical pharmacy, pharmacognosy, pharmacology, toxicology and a few other ones .
3. Epidemiology doesn't support evolution, epidemiology deals with the spread and control of diseases, viruses, concepts etc. throughout populations or systems. If evolutionist want to infer one or two things from it then let's go into it.
4. Evolution is not the reason will see variations in phenotypes, species keep reproducing according to their kinds based on their genes. Macro and microevolution try to explain this but it has still fallen short. Take the human race since the last 6000 years, no phenotype changes have occurred. By now we should have all mutated to mutants like in X-MEN cause that's where evolution seems to be pointing us to. And it's this belief in evolution that is the driving force of racism, which makes the white call us monkeys cause they believe we are closer to the apes due to our skin colour and they are not.
5. Biological engineering, an aspect of this field seeks to establish the theory of evolution but bioengineering have broader aspects and applications than evolution.

I don't argue. These are facts I know.

lol ok

Judybash93:
As for me, i can't say God doesn't exist because i can't prove it neither can i say he/she exists because i can't prove it either but for those who are saying that God exists and those who are saying God doesn't exist, please bring your hard evidence to prove your points.
Moreover, why are we fixated on the Judeo-Christian deity, why not the Buddhist or Taoist or other religions that exist around the world?

You cant prove something doesn’t exist, it doesn’t work that way, it’s a fallacy. That’s the Russel’s teapot fallacy, we can claim that there’s a teapot somewhere between earth and mars, who’s gonna prove that?

The burden of proof is on those who think it exist.

As far as we know, every evidence we have seen in science is totally contrary to what religion is saying; creation, geocentrism, anthropocentrism, great flood of Noah etc, all these have been proven to be wrong. It begs to doubt every other thing they have to say about their god.

onlyfacts:
Where does evolution work? I'm curious

1. Making of new vaccines.
2. Making of Antibiotics/Antibiotic resistance.
3. Epidemiology of new diseases
4. Evolution is also the reason why you cannot look exactly like you siblings even as you are from same parents, there has to be a variation to allow a diverse gene pool and adaptation of our specie to a constantly changing environment.
5. Biological engineering

Please before you argue (because I know that’s what you wanna do), take your time and study how these above mentioned stuffs cannot work without the knowledge of evolution else I won’t reply you if you make any crude statement.