Science Backs Up The Bible Again

[edthecynic]

Give us scientific proof that a snake can speak the king's English.

You even have this wrong. Everyone knows snakes can't talk. Thus, it was Satan doing the talking.

I don't expect edthecynic to explain. Mostly, all he does is insult and complain.

It was so certainly a real serpent, that all its species, which had before walked on their feet, were condemned to crawl on their bellies. No serpent, no animal of any kind, is called Satan, or Belzebub, or Devil, in the Pentatuch.

 

[BreezeWood]

Give us scientific proof that a snake can speak the king's English.

You even have this wrong. Everyone knows snakes can't talk. Thus, it was Satan doing the talking.

I don't expect edthecynic to explain. Mostly, all he does is insult and complain.

Anyway, I was hoping someone would explain free will as Hitchens (dead now) or how Dawkins explains it. Does it have to do with quantum mechanics? QM is basically higher level math and physics.

I think the Christians have explained how quantum mechanics backs up what is said in the Bible. Whether you accept the theory or not is another matter. We don't accept the multiple worlds (multiverse) hypothesis.

.

You even have this wrong. Everyone knows snakes can't talk. Thus, it was Satan doing the talking.

satan is dead - you do not know it was not an emissary sent by the Almighty and more likely as they were successful in their mission - displaying choice not evil on the part of adam and eve. the c bible is wrong.

I think the Christians have explained how quantum mechanics backs up what is said in the Bible.

where have you concluded from anyone free will is in dispute - you seem to be arguing with yourself your all knowing c. deity knows despite free will everyone's destiny ... too bad for you.

also nothing you have mentioned in the least bit verifies christianities phony belief in a messiah - which by the way eliminates free will and is contrary to the original religion of antiquity the c. bible does dispute.

 

[james bond]

Atheists in general are not saying that. Back to my first point. There is no need to try to justify the meaning of Bell's superdeterminism. Most scientists don't agree with superdeterninism anyway, but do agree with his theorem on local hidden variables. What Bell is doing in a sense is throwing in the towel as far as an explanation. But other scientists are continuing a deeper exploration.

They are saying that. Here's what Hitchens said about free will. Where he and I agree is there is no free will part, but we do have a will to make decisions such as moral decisions. It means that we cannot be completely free of outside influence. I can not say all atheists do not believe in free will, but I think most atheists would say that, i.e. no free will. Thus, we have predestination as per the Bible, but no free will. I have found that will is different from free will, so am now able to make a clearer explanation.

It would be nice if you gave some examples of what you mean. We have superdeterminism, determinism, and fatalism. Out of the three, superdeterminism has the hypothetical constructs and states there is no free will. While there are overlaps as to what it means, it may not mean superdeterminism. That means everything is determined everywhere in the universe, i.e. hard determinism. Anything that happens in the universe is due to past actions. Determinism is what most of us believe. That whatever begins to exist must have a cause; it is cause and effect. The distinction between it and hard determinism would mean that it would have to include events that occur in quantum mechanics. I don't think Bell was throwing the towel. He was asking is there always a cause and effect in quantum mechanics or superdeterminism?

What you are ignoring is a concept that comes from classical electromagnetic physics and is adopted in QM. The transactional interpretation of quantum mechanics involves the idea of advanced and retarded waves. That concept moves the idea of locality from our perspective to the perspective of the photon. From a photon's frame, there is no such concept as distance traveled and a time of flight.

In the unlikely event that you will look into the transactional interpretation further, here are some further notes that are glossed over in any account you might find. Advanced waves may seem like they violate locality, but think of the Fitzgerald contraction. The faster an object goes the shorter the universe appears in the objects frame of reference. As the object approaches the speed of light, the apparent distance to it's destination diminishes to zero. That also happens with time. The conclusion is that from the perspective of the photon, it is absorbed immediately after emission. The vanishing temporal and spatial variables make the photon's flight local.

To me that is a much more satisfying viewpoint than determinism in understanding entanglement. That is why I say God is unnecessary to explain entanglement.

As far as the multiverse hypothesis, you replied,

I know that the quantum world has some unpredictable behaviors, but you have to do better if you are claiming waves that go backward in time. How does it do that?

How did you overcome the following?

"In 1996, Tim Maudlin proposed a thought experiment involving Wheeler's delayed choice experiment that is generally taken as a refutation of TIQM.[12] However Kastner showed Maudlin's argument is not fatal for TIQM.[13][14]

In his book, The Quantum Handshake, Cramer has added a hierarchy to the description of pseudo-time to deal with Maudlin's objection and has pointed out that some of Maudlin's arguments are based on the inappropriate application of Heisenberg's knowledge interpretation to the transactional description.[15]

Transactional Interpretation faces criticisms. The following is partial list and some replies:

1. "TI does not generate new predictions / is not testable / has not been tested."

TI is an exact interpretation of QM and so its predictions must be the same as QM. Like the many-worlds interpretation (MWI), TI is a "pure" interpretation in that it does not add anything ad hoc but provides a physical referent for a part of the formalism that has lacked one (the advanced states implicitly appearing in the Born rule). Thus the demand often placed on TI for new predictions or testability is a mistaken one that misconstrues the project of interpretation as one of theory modification.[16]

2. “It is not made clear where in spacetime a transaction occurs.”

One clear account is given in Cramer (1986), which pictures a transaction as a four-vector standing wave whose endpoints are the emission and absorption events.[17]

3. "Maudlin (1996, 2002) has demonstrated that TI is inconsistent."

Maudlin's probability criticism confused the transactional interpretation with Heisenberg's knowledge interpretation. However, he raised a valid point concerning causally connected possible outcomes, which led Cramer to add hierarchy to the pseudo-time description of transaction formation.[18][13][19][20][21] Kastner has extended TI to the relativistic domain, and in light of this expansion of the interpretation, it can be shown that the Maudlin Challenge cannot even be mounted, and is therefore nullified; there is no need for the 'hierarchy' proposal of Cramer.[22] Maudlin has also claimed that all the dynamics of TI is deterministic and therefore there can be no 'collapse.' But this appears to disregard the response of absorbers, which is the whole innovation of the model. Specifically, the linearity of the Schrödinger evolution is broken by the response of absorbers; this directly sets up the non-unitary measurement transition, without any need for ad hoc modifications to the theory. The non-unitarity is discussed, for example in Chapter 3 of Kastner's book The Transactional Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics: The Reality of Possibility (CUP, 2012).[23]

4. "It is not clear how the transactional interpretation handles the quantum mechanics of more than one particle."

This issue is addressed in Cramer's 1986 paper, in which he gives many examples of the application of TIQM to multi-particle quantum systems. However, if the question is about the existence of multi-particle wave functions in normal 3D space, Cramer's 2015 book goes into some detail in justifying multi-particle wave functions in 3D space.[24] A criticism of Cramer's 2015 account of dealing with multi-particle quantum systems is found in Kastner 2016, "An Overview of the Transactional Interpretation and its Evolution into the 21st Century, Philosophy Compass (2016).[25] It observes in particular that the account in Cramer 2015 is necessarily anti-realist about the multi-particle states: if they are only part of a 'map,' then they are not real, and in this form TI becomes an instrumentalist interpretation, contrary to its original spirit. Thus the so-called "retreat" to Hilbert space (criticized also below in the lengthy discussion of note [24]) can instead be seen as a needed expansion of the ontology, rather than a retreat to anti-realism/instrumentalism about the multi-particle states. The vague statement (under [24]) that "Offer waves are somewhat ephemeral three-dimensional space objects" indicates the lack of clear definition of the ontology when one attempts to keep everything in 3+1 spacetime."

Transactional interpretation - Wikipedia

??? They are two different phenomena. Wave-particle duality is an integral part of mathematics of quantum mechanics. Particles traveling through space act as a wave. Interactions act as particles. The multiverse is a hypothesis that addresses the superposition of states and the fact that only one set of states is manifested and observed in an interaction. That is different from duality.

It's the double slit experiment done with lasers. It demonstrates wave-particle duality. If you don't want to subscribe to the multiverse, then that is fine with me. I don't believe it, but like I said people like Stephen Hawking wrote a paper on it. His last one! Other top quantum physicists believe it, too, even though there is no evidence. It's the atheists' flying spaghetti monster haha.

 

[james bond]

It was so certainly a real serpent, that all its species, which had before walked on their feet, were condemned to crawl on their bellies. No serpent, no animal of any kind, is called Satan, or Belzebub, or Devil, in the Pentatuch.

Haha. You're limiting me to the Pentatuch. Expand you mind, please.

Anyway, you admit that the serpent was a tetrapod and crawled on their bellies afterward. It was a real serpent, and Satan used it to talk through. This is history.

"And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Revelation 12:9

 

[james bond]

satan is dead - you do not know it was not an emissary sent by the Almighty and more likely as they were successful in their mission - displaying choice not evil on the part of adam and eve. the c bible is wrong.

That would be great, but it is a lie. Where do you get such foolish ideas?

where have you concluded from anyone free will is in dispute

Where is your evidence for free will? We have a will and predeterminism. That backs up the Bible.

 

[edthecynic]

It was so certainly a real serpent, that all its species, which had before walked on their feet, were condemned to crawl on their bellies. No serpent, no animal of any kind, is called Satan, or Belzebub, or Devil, in the Pentatuch.

Haha. You're limiting me to the Pentatuch. Expand you mind, please.

Anyway, you admit that the serpent was a tetrapod and crawled on their bellies afterward. It was a real serpent, and Satan used it to talk through. This is history.

"And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Revelation 12:9

It was in the Pentatuch that a snake spoke the King's English, not the revisionist "New" Testament.

 

[james bond]

It was so certainly a real serpent, that all its species, which had before walked on their feet, were condemned to crawl on their bellies. No serpent, no animal of any kind, is called Satan, or Belzebub, or Devil, in the Pentatuch.

Haha. You're limiting me to the Pentatuch. Expand you mind, please.

Anyway, you admit that the serpent was a tetrapod and crawled on their bellies afterward. It was a real serpent, and Satan used it to talk through. This is history.

"And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Revelation 12:9

It was in the Pentatuch that a snake spoke the King's English, not the revisionist "New" Testament.

Can you provide the chap-verse and translate that he spoke "King's English?"

 

[BreezeWood]

satan is dead - you do not know it was not an emissary sent by the Almighty and more likely as they were successful in their mission - displaying choice not evil on the part of adam and eve. the c bible is wrong.

That would be great, but it is a lie. Where do you get such foolish ideas?

where have you concluded from anyone free will is in dispute

Where is your evidence for free will? We have a will and predeterminism. That backs up the Bible.

.

That would be great, but it is a lie. Where do you get such foolish ideas?

it is your ideas uninterrupted through the centuries that proves the lies you refer to being the revisionist 4th century christian bible ... that is your original sin you claim for your religion not that of the true religion of antiquity as prescribed by the Almighty.

Where is your evidence for free will? We have a will and predeterminism. That backs up the Bible.

Where is your evidence for free will ...

the religion of antiquity - the triumph of good vs evil.


We have a will and predeterminism. That backs up the Bible ...

not the christian bible, you have given up your will to a false messiah of your own making not that of the person you claim from the 1st century.

 

[Wuwei]

They are saying that. Here's what Hitchens said about free will. Where he and I agree is there is no free will part, but we do have a will to make decisions such as moral decisions. It means that we cannot be completely free of outside influence. I can not say all atheists do not believe in free will, but I think most atheists would say that, i.e. no free will. Thus, we have predestination as per the Bible, but no free will. I have found that will is different from free will, so am now able to make a clearer explanation.

Hitchens doesn't represent all atheists, but I'm not going to worry about it. Unless you can find a poll concerning free will, my position is that we don't know what they generally believe.

It would be nice if you gave some examples of what you mean. We have superdeterminism, determinism, and fatalism. Out of the three, superdeterminism has the hypothetical constructs and states there is no free will. While there are overlaps as to what it means, it may not mean superdeterminism. That means everything is determined everywhere in the universe, i.e. hard determinism. Anything that happens in the universe is due to past actions. Determinism is what most of us believe. That whatever begins to exist must have a cause; it is cause and effect. The distinction between it and hard determinism would mean that it would have to include events that occur in quantum mechanics. I don't think Bell was throwing the towel. He was asking is there always a cause and effect in quantum mechanics or superdeterminism?

I don't like to second guess definitions or interpret them. I can only go by dictionary definitions .

To me fatalism is an obsolete concept. It is the type of thing that occurs with oracles in old Greek or Roman plays or in SiFi. You are told a dismal fate, so you try like mad to avoid it (using free will?), but it happens anyway. An event is ordained, but the sequence to get there is not.

Determinism: all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes.

Superdeterminism: A generalization of determinism that includes the complete absence of free will

I have no idea if these definitions agreed upon by all sources. But it seems the two determinisms overthrow Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. My thinking is that particles in a microscopic ensemble behave unpredictably within a set of computed predictable choices, and in the macroscopic world a countless sequence of butterfly effects dominates everything and creates a virtual absence of determinism. That is my pragmatic view as a physicist.

I know that the quantum world has some unpredictable behaviors, but you have to do better if you are claiming waves that go backward in time. How does it do that?

I am not claiming it. Some of the most highly respected scientists have claimed it starting a hundred years ago. How does it do that? I already told you that from a photon's frame of reference it is not going backwards in time. It's not going anywhere in time. Reread the third paragraph of post #38 .

The laws of particle physics work forward and backward in time. That is the explanation for vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles. Colloquially, an electron and positron can be created by borrowing energy from the future, then annihilate each other and return the annihilation energy back to the past. But that's another story.

Transactional Interpretation faces criticisms. The following is partial list and some replies:

Yes, I already read those. I read a book on Bell's theories and the transaction interpretation years ago.


.

 

[edthecynic]

It was so certainly a real serpent, that all its species, which had before walked on their feet, were condemned to crawl on their bellies. No serpent, no animal of any kind, is called Satan, or Belzebub, or Devil, in the Pentatuch.

Haha. You're limiting me to the Pentatuch. Expand you mind, please.

Anyway, you admit that the serpent was a tetrapod and crawled on their bellies afterward. It was a real serpent, and Satan used it to talk through. This is history.

"And the great dragon was thrown down, that ancient serpent, who is called the devil and Satan, the deceiver of the whole world—he was thrown down to the earth, and his angels were thrown down with him." Revelation 12:9

It was in the Pentatuch that a snake spoke the King's English, not the revisionist "New" Testament.

Can you provide the chap-verse and translate that he spoke "King's English?"

Well what language did Adam and Eve speak?
Hebrew didn't exist at that time.

 

[james bond]

Well what language did Adam and Eve speak?
Hebrew didn't exist at that time.

I asked for chap-ver that Adam spoke the King's English? And why are you asking a question to my question?

You screwed up if you ask me haha..

 

[james bond]

Hitchens doesn't represent all atheists, but I'm not going to worry about it. Unless you can find a poll concerning free will, my position is that we don't know what they generally believe.

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, but no one has free will. Hitchens joked, "Yes, I have free will. I have no choice but to have it." What people have is will to be able to make decisions and moral choices. We may think we have free will, but are limited in the choices we can make.

 

[james bond]

I don't like to second guess definitions or interpret them. I can only go by dictionary definitions .

To me fatalism is an obsolete concept. It is the type of thing that occurs with oracles in old Greek or Roman plays or in SiFi. You are told a dismal fate, so you try like mad to avoid it (using free will?), but it happens anyway. An event is ordained, but the sequence to get there is not.

Determinism: all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes.

Superdeterminism: A generalization of determinism that includes the complete absence of free will

I have no idea if these definitions agreed upon by all sources. But it seems the two determinisms overthrow Heisenberg's uncertainty principle. My thinking is that particles in a microscopic ensemble behave unpredictably within a set of computed predictable choices, and in the macroscopic world a countless sequence of butterfly effects dominates everything and creates a virtual absence of determinism. That is my pragmatic view as a physicist.

I can only guess why Bell mentioned superdeterminism or hard determinism. I think most of us accept determinism, but we have a will and our choices are limited, so it isn't free will. I will have more choices of what to eat at my local Denny's for breakfast than what I can make at home. However, there may be two dishes I can make at home that Denny's doesn't offer.like day old probiotic yogurt and Philz tantalizing turkish coffee (yow!).

I am not claiming it. Some of the most highly respected scientists have claimed it starting a hundred years ago. How does it do that? I already told you that from a photon's frame of reference it is not going backwards in time. It's not going anywhere in time. Reread the third paragraph of post #38 .

The laws of particle physics work forward and backward in time. That is the explanation for vacuum fluctuations and virtual particles. Colloquially, an electron and positron can be created by borrowing energy from the future, then annihilate each other and return the annihilation energy back to the past. But that's another story.

How do you know it works backward in time? This is pseudoscience.

Transactional Interpretation faces criticisms. The following is partial list and some replies:

Yes, I already read those. I read a book on Bell's theories and the transaction interpretation years ago.

This is the religious section, so I'll leave you to believe in TI and going backward in time .

 

[Wuwei]

I can only guess why Bell mentioned superdeterminism or hard determinism. I think most of us accept determinism, but we have a will and our choices are limited, so it isn't free will.

It doesn't matter if you believe it or not, but no one has free will. Hitchens joked, "Yes, I have free will. I have no choice but to have it." What people have is will to be able to make decisions and moral choices. We may think we have free will, but are limited in the choices we can make.

I don't understand your distinction between will and free will. Your choices are obviously limited to what is physically possible with both, will and free will.

How do you know it works backward in time? This is pseudoscience.

No it comes from physical observations. Experiments such as the Casmir effect show the vacuum fluctuation where virtual particles pop in and out of existence. This can happen because of the uncertainty principle between energy and time.

his is the religious section, so I'll leave you to believe in TI and going backward in time

Time reversal invariance is a necessary part of physics. The TI hypothesis is using that principle no differently than many other well understood physics phenomena. It is not unique to TI.

I led you to the water but I can't make you drink. If you don't want to believe in the well established science of QM I will not try anymore.

.

 

[james bond]

I don't understand your distinction between will and free will. Your choices are obviously limited to what is physically possible with both, will and free will.

Free will is unlimited. It's true wherever you are in the universe. You can't be wherever you want in the universe. If we have superdeterminism, then there is no free will anywhere in the universe.

No it comes from physical observations. Experiments such as the Casmir effect show the vacuum fluctuation where virtual particles pop in and out of existence. This can happen because of the uncertainty principle between energy and time.

Your particles going back in time is pseudoscience. How does Casimir effect have particles go back in time?

Time reversal invariance is a necessary part of physics. The TI hypothesis is using that principle no differently than many other well understood physics phenomena. It is not unique to TI.

I led you to the water but I can't make you drink. If you don't want to believe in the well established science of QM I will not try anymore.

It doesn't matter. I know you cannot explain QM, are wrong, and cannot even explain the things you just mentioned. You are frustrated af and thus, have been dismissed.

 

[BreezeWood]

If we have superdeterminism, then there is no free will anywhere in the universe.

that is exactly what christianity is based on, to superimpose and abandon an individuals spirit to that of a yet to be determined, single minded messiah ... without a shred of evidence for their undertaking and not reflective of the true events of the 1st century.

 

[Wuwei]

Free will is unlimited. It's true wherever you are in the universe. You can't be wherever you want in the universe. If we have superdeterminism, then there is no free will anywhere in the universe.

Dictionary definition of determinism:
all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes.
If moral choices are predetermined, that doesn't sound like unlimited free will to me. If it's a simple statement of cause and effect, it's not an novel idea.

Your particles going back in time is pseudoscience. How does Casimir effect have particles go back in time?

Not my particles. I can't take credit for QM from the last century.
In post #43 you copied four criticisms of the Transactional Interpretation of QM. None of those four experts criticized advanced waves as pseudoscience as you do.

It doesn't matter. I know you cannot explain QM, are wrong, and cannot even explain the things you just mentioned. You are frustrated af and thus, have been dismissed.

So this boils down to your argumentum ad homenim. How do you expect me to proceed if you keep calling established physics principles pseudoscience. My impression is that you aren't interested anymore. I can understand that.

Let me sum up. Bell's superdeterminism and Cramer's Transactional Interpretation are old hypotheses and controversial. There are a number of other hypotheses, but Bell's idea is the only one I know of that falls outside the framework of QM. Being an unproven hypothesis among many, it does not back up the Bible.

.

 

[james bond]

that is exactly what christianity is based on, to superimpose and abandon an individuals spirit to that of a yet to be determined, single minded messiah ... without a shred of evidence for their undertaking and not reflective of the true events of the 1st century.

Without a shred of evidence? We have the Resurrection!!!

You are one mad "believer."

that is exactly what christianity is based on, to superimpose and abandon an individuals spirit to that of a yet to be determined, single minded messiah ... without a shred of evidence for their undertaking and not reflective of the true events of the 1st century.

We still have will to choose our decisions in life, especially decide on objective moral values decisions. Isn't that why we have this forum? It's evidence for this will.

We also have all the other little decisions that we make in life like what color clothes to wear, whether to make a left turn or right turn. We decided to go grocery shopping. Now, what's interesting is the predestination in that those who will be saved have already been chosen. Those who have been chosen also have chosen Jesus through their will.

 

[james bond]

Dictionary definition of determinism:
all events, including moral choices, are completely determined by previously existing causes.
If moral choices are predetermined, that doesn't sound like unlimited free will to me. If it's a simple statement of cause and effect, it's not an novel idea.

There is a lot going on here.

Determinism definition
Definition of DETERMINISM

Determinism is like when you want to cross the river, but there is no bridge. You can't just fly over it. It means we have no free will. We choose to fly over, but can't. Thus, our choices are limited.

If one brings in moral choices (objective moral values?), the you are describing fatalism. We may be predestined to go to heaven, i.e. only God's chosen ones will make it. However, they still have to choose to believe in Jesus and support God's objective moral values through their will. What if they just choose to believe on their own? They may have been chosen then. We do not know the future.

Thus, are you objecting to determinism or predestination? It may be the latter you are objecting to.

With determinism and no free will, atheists like to argue that we really do not have a choice because of neuroscience.

Neuroscience of free will - Wikipedia

I still think we have limited will because we still choose one or the other (because we have a will!). Otherwise, there was a cause to make you choose to wear green today. Every choice would be based on determinism. Fatalism is determinism, but determinism isn't fatalism. And what is the cause of that?

Not my particles. I can't take credit for QM from the last century.
In post #43 you copied four criticisms of the Transactional Interpretation of QM. None of those four experts criticized advanced waves as pseudoscience as you do.

You have to make a better argument for stating particles going back in time. That's pseudoscience.

So this boils down to your argumentum ad homenim. How do you expect me to proceed if you keep calling established physics principles pseudoscience. My impression is that you aren't interested anymore. I can understand that.

Let me sum up. Bell's superdeterminism and Cramer's Transactional Interpretation are old hypotheses and controversial. There are a number of other hypotheses, but Bell's idea is the only one I know of that falls outside the framework of QM. Being an unproven hypothesis among many, it does not back up the Bible

Wrong again. They aren't established physics principles. We are discussing QM. Even Stephen Hawking hypothesized that we have to unify gravity with the standard model in order to solve quantum entanglement. This is part of the reason why you are being dismissed. The other is TIQM and not being able to explain how particles go back in time. How can anything go back in time? It violates Einstein's special relativity theory.

As for the rest, you are making a circular argument. Another fallacy.

Superdeterminism is under QM. There is no dictionary definition. I suppose it is to argue determinism in what happens in quantum entanglement. We see that the other particle had no choice. It immediately changed position. There is no other factor without violating the laws of physics and I am vehemently against that such as particles going back in time.

ETA: At least, I try to explain via the graviton on how quantum entanglement happens. IOW, there is a particle to explain gravity's force. It is immediate because it goes into the 4th dimension. We have done experiments in trying to show the graviton exists, but still no evidence. Thus, quantum entanglement is still a mystery.

 

[BreezeWood]

that is exactly what christianity is based on, to superimpose and abandon an individuals spirit to that of a yet to be determined, single minded messiah ... without a shred of evidence for their undertaking and not reflective of the true events of the 1st century.

Without a shred of evidence? We have the Resurrection!!!

You are one mad "believer."

that is exactly what christianity is based on, to superimpose and abandon an individuals spirit to that of a yet to be determined, single minded messiah ... without a shred of evidence for their undertaking and not reflective of the true events of the 1st century.

We still have will to choose our decisions in life, especially decide on objective moral values decisions. Isn't that why we have this forum? It's evidence for this will.

We also have all the other little decisions that we make in life like what color clothes to wear, whether to make a left turn or right turn. We decided to go grocery shopping. Now, what's interesting is the predestination in that those who will be saved have already been chosen. Those who have been chosen also have chosen Jesus through their will.

.

Now, what's interesting is the predestination in that those who will be saved have already been chosen. Those who have been chosen also have chosen Jesus through their will.

who will be saved ...

saved from what - how is surrendering free will to be saved the same as having free will.

howabout fulfilling their destiny as prescribed by the religion of antiquity as when free will was granted in the garden of eden. or perishing as the alternative and price for the gift. granted to all beings

you ignore the conflicts you have with free will and your religions requirement to relinquish that to a messiah - why was it granted in the first place.


We have the Resurrection !!!

no, you have a book and nothing more, no physical evidence ... from some backwatter enclave in the middle east not known for any particular accomplishment than smuggling and goat herding. when the capital of the civilized world, Rome was available.