Atheists go to hell even if they are good!? (2)

[cubinity]

God however is described as our infallible creator that under no circumstance can ever be incorrect.

Described that way by whom?

And, if his prediction is just a prediction (like she described), but His predictions are right 100% of the time (which would live up to your description of "never incorrect"), then why can't you both be describing the same phenomenon/characteristic of God in different ways?

I'm genuinely asking out of curiosity. It isn't meant to be read as an attack on your thinking or anything. You may be right, and I want to hear more about your position on this.

 

[Skavau]

Described that way by whom?

By almost all of Christianity. God is effectively nearly always referred to as omniscient. If you want to break from that characterisation then by all means but it is a vanilla standpoint.

And, if his prediction is just a prediction (like she described), but His predictions are right 100% of the time (which would live up to your description of "never incorrect"), then why can't you both be describing the same phenomenon/characteristic of God in different ways?

Philothei made a poor analogy. She compared her predictive qualities to that of God. She is making predictions based on her experience and knowledge. They could turn out to be true, but they also may not. It simply cannot function in such a way if you believe that an omniscient deity exists. The omniscient deity responsible for creating us and knowing by consequence of his omniscient everything we would and could do ever.

 

[cubinity]

By almost all of Christianity. God is effectively nearly always referred to as omniscient. If you want to break from that characterisation then by all means but it is a vanilla standpoint.


Philothei made a poor analogy. She compared her predictive qualities to that of God. She is making predictions based on her experience and knowledge. They could turn out to be true, but they also may not. It simply cannot function in such a way if you believe that an omniscient deity exists. The omniscient deity responsible for creating us and knowing by consequence of his omniscient everything we would and could do ever.

Oh, okay. Thanks for clarifying.

I don't necessarily see it that way, but I genuinely respect that you do.

I see omniscience with a little bit different spin.

My view sounds something like yours but gives room for Philothei's to be a little bit more helpful than "poor."

 

[Freodin]

If you are suppressing the truth, hw do you suppose you're going to see convincing arguments for that truth?

If you were met with a convincing argument... how could you not be convinced? If you weren't convinced... how would that argument be convincing?

 

[Freodin]

Double post... CF is acting up a little at the moment.

I'll just use this space to enhance on my last post...

As I said before "truth" can be any old statement. "I am 42 years old" is a statement. It is true (at the time I am writing this). "I am 3 months old" is also such a statement. It is false (again, at the time of writing).

Now there are reasons that makes you accept the one as "true" and the other as "false". These are the "convincing arguments".


A different statement: "I have an above average number of fingers." True or false?

 

[Philothei]

Well, tear it apart. My position is simply this: if someone (be it God, whoever) knows what will happen in the future 100% (relative to our current position in time), then nothing else can happen in the future other than what the someone saw.

Is this wrong? Point out where I'm wrong

You are reducing God's mind and logic to match your own... For starters to be able to totally figure out God would mean we are also at the same level with Him thus we would also be god... Just like Eistein's example...Some understand him some have a hard time...but still his 'theory" is valid...Regardless of our undertanding the same "principle" applies here. Whether or not you understand God (which for sure we can't as we are not HIM) God is still operates in logic. Since we cannot even tell where the universe stops.... or how big it is you truly think that our minds are "top notch"? I think not. Realizing we are limited is a mature decision of a human being that comes indeed from experiencing the outside world. The idea of a more knowledgable being is not a choice but indeed an outcome of a logical reasoning about the world we live in. And yeah in the emotional level it demands a faith commitment of the heart not only of the nous. Christ points that out very often ...to the Greeks who wanted 'wisdom" and the Jews who wanted "signs" ... Both were equally making a fallacy. They placed their inability to understand God in God...

 

[Philothei]

Philothei made a poor analogy. She compared her predictive qualities to that of God. She is making predictions based on her experience and knowledge. They could turn out to be true, but they also may not. It simply cannot function in such a way if you believe that an omniscient deity exists. The omniscient deity responsible for creating us and knowing by consequence of his omniscient everything we would and could do ever.

Since you cannot prove them wrong why would you say that it still is impossible that does not make sense to me. God's ability to conduscend when it comes to man's free will is an ability that God can do. If that is illogical to you why would that be impossible for God? God who creates everything ex nihilo cannot do whatever is in His dominion? Omniscience is not compromised as God can fortell. God is of course above time and space that is a given

 

[Skavau]

Since you cannot prove them wrong why would you say that it still is impossible that does not make sense to me.

Because it is logically inconsistent. It does not work.

God's ability to conduscend when it comes to man's free will is an ability that God can do. If that is illogical to you why would that be impossible for God? God who creates everything ex nihilo cannot do whatever is in His dominion?

Then you hold God to be inherently contradictory (regardless of your reasons for why). It is simply not possible for free choice to exist under an omniscient being.

 

[razeontherock]

It is simply not possible for free choice to exist under an omniscient being.

This is an absolutely false statement. I don't recall if it is in this thread that I began tackling that, or if it is in another. Have you ever worked your way through the 10 dimensions of string theory?

 

[Skavau]

This is an absolutely false statement. I don't recall if it is in this thread that I began tackling that, or if it is in another. Have you ever worked your way through the 10 dimensions of string theory?

I've argued the omniscience vs. free-will many times in the past. I have yet to see a credible argument supporting it.

 

[selfinflikted]

I've argued the omniscience vs. free-will many times in the past. I have yet to see a credible argument supporting it.

Same. Let me put it the way I see it, and you guys tell me where I'm wrong, if I am.

If god is all-knowing, then he knows each and every decision each and every person will ever make. If the outcome is already known by god, it would then be impossible for one to decide to choose anything to the contrary, thus, no free will. Amirite?

 

[razeontherock]

Same. Let me put it the way I see it, and you guys tell me where I'm wrong, if I am.

If god is all-knowing, then he knows each and every decision each and every person will ever make. If the outcome is already known by god, it would then be impossible for one to decide to choose anything to the contrary, thus, no free will. Amirite?

Test the theory. Drive down the freeway doing ... whatever it is you drive. Around here that's 75.

Let go of the wheel. See what happens.

Of course you won't really do that, but this is all that is needed to prove the point, that yes, we have free will, dominion, power to choose ...

 

[razeontherock]

I've argued the omniscience vs. free-will many times in the past. I have yet to see a credible argument supporting it.

Nice dodge - except it wasn't.

 

[Skavau]

Nice dodge - except it wasn't.

What?

 

[Philothei]

Described that way by whom?

And, if his prediction is just a prediction (like she described), but His predictions are right 100% of the time (which would live up to your description of "never incorrect"), then why can't you both be describing the same phenomenon/characteristic of God in different ways?

I'm genuinely asking out of curiosity. It isn't meant to be read as an attack on your thinking or anything. You may be right, and I want to hear more about your position on this.

So if a medium knows that a plane will crush...how is she also the cause of it?

 

[selfinflikted]

Test the theory. Drive down the freeway doing ... whatever it is you drive. Around here that's 75.

Let go of the wheel. See what happens.

Of course you won't really do that, but this is all that is needed to prove the point, that yes, we have free will, dominion, power to choose ...

You're missing it, totally.

If god already knows that I would take my hands off the wheel and crash my car, how could I not take my hands off the wheel and crash my car?

 

[Philothei]

Some people think they can imagine a creature which was free but had no possibility of going wrong; I cannot. If a thing is free to be good it is also free to be bad. And free will is what has made evil possible. Why, then, did God give them free will? Because free will, though it makes evil possible, is also the only thing that makes possible any love or goodness or joy worth having. A world of automata -- of creatures that worked like machines -- would hardly be worth creating.

Chris Banescu -- Book Review: Mere Christianity by C.S. Lewis
CS. Lewis is a good starting point for understanding this .... After all he was himself agnostic who came to Christianity

 

[Philothei]

Nah ...Raz does not you are missing the point that knowing the future is like a gut feeling we get ... sometimes that something will happen. But you deny to deal with the example I gave you..Some people indeed have the gift of knowing the future the police uses that gift.... Does this mean they cause the future to take place? Nah.

 

[Skavau]

Nah ...Raz does not you are missing the point that knowing the future is like a gut feeling we get ... sometimes that something will happen. But you deny to deal with the example I gave you..Some people indeed have the gift of knowing the future the police uses that gift.... Does this mean they cause the future to take place? Nah.

No-one has a gift to predict the future. That is pseudo-science. Detectives and investigators of incidents rely upon deductive reasoning and an understanding of human psychology to predict what someone might do.

 

[razeontherock]

If god already knows that I would take my hands off the wheel and crash my car, how could I not take my hands off the wheel and crash my car?

You are denying your ability to choose to do so or not, which you obviously possess. You are also ignoring the 10 dimensions of string theory, but applying yourself to thinking your way through them to gain that understanding could be ... hard.