The stumbling block for atheists.

[Non sequitur]

Yes.

Since you knew the outcome would be good, you'd be at least as accountable as him for the good outcome. You get credit for putting him in the situation and he gets credit for making good choices.

What if the outcome wasn't good?

 

[Chriliman]

What if the outcome wasn't good?

You said you knew it was good, so if it turns out to be bad then I'd know you were wrong.

 

[Non sequitur]

You said you knew it was good, so if it turns out to be bad then I'd know you were wrong.

I never said that, anywhere.

 

[Kylie]

You're right and that 'something' is our own will.

Our own will is not able to make decisions about the future.

 

[Kylie]

But you are making the future set in stone contingent on God knowing. Seems you are contradicting yourself a bit there.

No I'm not.

When I watch Jurassic Park, I KNOW that the t-rex is going to eat the lawyer on the toilet. That does not mean I am making it happen.

When I watch Star Wars, I KNOW Han Solo is going to come back to take care of the TIE fighters so Luke can shoot the missiles and blow up the Death Star. But that doesn't mean I made him return.

 

[Chriliman]

I never said that, anywhere.

I have evidence that you did say it:

Even though I set the stage, and know what will happen, I anticipate a good outcome!

You said you know what will happen and anticipate a good outcome, which clearly implies you know the outcome will be good. Maybe you misspoke.

 

[Chriliman]

Our own will is not able to make decisions about the future.

How does that follow from what I said?

You concluded that 'something' is forcing us to make decisions and I'm just suggesting that 'something' is our own will. Besides, we can make decisions based on what we think will happen in the future.

 

[Non sequitur]

I have evidence that you did say it:



You said you know what will happen and anticipate a good outcome, which clearly implies you know the outcome will be good. Maybe you misspoke.

Good point.

You said, "Everything God does is in anticipation of a good outcome that He knows will come to fulfillment."

Anticipation is regarded as probable or likely to happen... but also knowing it would happen makes the sentence contradictory and illogical.

Can you reword that?

 

[Kylie]

How does that follow from what I said?

You concluded that 'something' is forcing us to make decisions and I'm just suggesting that 'something' is our own will. Besides, we can make decisions based on what we think will happen in the future.

Sorry, I misread your response.

 

[Radrook]

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

Strange since such an assumption goes completely contrary to what they themselves admit-that there are many things in existence which cannot be detected by the senses and must be assumed or conjectured to exist based on mathematical equations which indicate the probability or the possibility of their existence.

 

[Ken-1122]

But atheism has one fatal flaw. It assumes that the sum total of reality is what can be detected by the senses. Drop this assumption and the "magic" of miracles appears, the "pink unicorns" disappear, and the Creator God can become known.

Why does the pink unicorns disappear? If we assume there is more than what can be detected, how come the pink unicorns cannot become known the same way the creator God or the magic of miracles can?

 

[Radrook]

Why does the pink unicorns disappear? If we assume there is more than what can be detected, how come the pink unicorns cannot become known the same way the creator God or the magic of miracles can?

The undetectable part of our universe can't be detected.

 

[quatona]

The undetectable part of our universe can't be detected.

Too bad.

 

[Michael]

The undetectable part of our universe can't be detected.

Technically the *effect* of something can be detected even if the hypothetical mass/energy cannot. We can see the effect of God on peoples lives.

Atheists don't necessarily reject all ideas that fail to show up in controlled experimentation in the lab, just any ideas that relate to the topic of "God".

 

[Radrook]

Technically the *effect* of something can be detected even if the hypothetical mass/energy cannot. We can see the effect of God on peoples lives.

Atheists don't necessarily reject all ideas that fail to show up in controlled experimentation in the lab, just any ideas that relate to the topic of "God".

That was my point. They infer the directly undetectable part from the detectable but refuse to use the same line of reasoning if the concept of God is involved.

 

[Radrook]

As I said in a previous post, one of the main points why, after all these years, I still cannot claim to "understand" Christians (or other theists) is that the second I think I have figured out one of them, another pops up and tells me "Oh, no, this isn't what I believe at all!".

So if I try to figure out the OP in light of the other posts that have been made here by other Christians, I need to come to the conclusion that atheists are atheists because they cannot see that there might be more to reality than what senses can detect.

That leads atheists to believe in other totally made up and undetectable, supernatural stuff, which they do accept as reality even if it cannot be detected by senses.

Basically what Kenny and others are saying here is: you are not better than me. Your stuff isn't better or more reliable than mine. All of that is ridiculous and potentially non-factual.

So perhaps if dysert could come back and explain why we should accept his non-detectable stuff over our non-detectable stuff...?

Non detectable to you.

 

[Freodin]

Non detectable to you.

If you had a way to distinguish what you "detected" from what another believer "detected", you might have a point.

If you had a way to distinguish "detected" from "imagined", you might have a point.

But you don't...

 

[Radrook]

If you had a way to distinguish what you "detected" from what another believer "detected", you might have a point.

If you had a way to distinguish "detected" from "imagined", you might have a point.

But you don't...

The point is that if it has God attached to it you automatically become blind to all points.

 

[quatona]

The point is that if it has God attached to it you automatically become blind to all points.

Making such negative assumptions about the person you talk with doesn´t really help the conversation. It makes you look empty handed.

 

[Freodin]

The point is that if it has God attached to it you automatically become blind to all points.

Really?

So what about all those people who "attach" God to what they claim to "detect"... and it is just their imagination? Are they blind to your point? Are you blind to their point?

Nah, I don't think that my "blindness" is the point. Your inability to even imagine a method to overcome this "blindness"... that is the point. Your inability to even correctly determine "blindness"... that is the point.