Hypothetical question for my fellow atheists

[Fort Fun Indiana]

So, Fort Fun was right. You have developed a nice little circular, insular argument for you. Of course miracles are proof of God...if you believe it is a miracle. Of course, you're only going to believe it's a miracle, if you already believe in God. How convenient.

How asinine. Once again, you intentionally distort what was said.

If you believe in God, miracles are possible ... if you don't believe in God, miracles are impossible. Instead, you attribute it to all kinds of witchy things - like extra-terrestrials, unidentified, or unproven, scientific actions, or mass illusions of millions of people. It can't be a miracle, so it must be some other undefined source.

Therefore, in order to believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God (because God is the source of miracles). Otherwise, whatever happened falls into this nebulous area that you create to justify those things you don't understand.

All you did was rephrase what I just said you said: If you believe in God it is a miracle. If you believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God. Of course you added an adorable zinger: If science cannot current explain a thing, then it must be God, or more accurately it must be a "miracle", so God.

No, I did NOT add that zinger ---- once again, you've intentionally perverted what was said.

Frankly, your lack of logic and truth, coupled with your unwillingness to listen to alternative ideas, has begun to bore me.

Just go away.

He obviously listened to your ideas, as he was about the only person with enough tolerance for you to respond to them all directly. You should be thanking him for listening to you, you insufferable sack of s***

Familiar with the term "sychophant"??

Look it up ---- you'll see your 6th grade graduation picture.

So, Fort Fun was right. You have developed a nice little circular, insular argument for you. Of course miracles are proof of God...if you believe it is a miracle. Of course, you're only going to believe it's a miracle, if you already believe in God. How convenient.

How asinine. Once again, you intentionally distort what was said.

If you believe in God, miracles are possible ... if you don't believe in God, miracles are impossible. Instead, you attribute it to all kinds of witchy things - like extra-terrestrials, unidentified, or unproven, scientific actions, or mass illusions of millions of people. It can't be a miracle, so it must be some other undefined source.

Therefore, in order to believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God (because God is the source of miracles). Otherwise, whatever happened falls into this nebulous area that you create to justify those things you don't understand.

All you did was rephrase what I just said you said: If you believe in God it is a miracle. If you believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God. Of course you added an adorable zinger: If science cannot current explain a thing, then it must be God, or more accurately it must be a "miracle", so God.

No, I did NOT add that zinger ---- once again, you've intentionally perverted what was said.

Frankly, your lack of logic and truth, coupled with your unwillingness to listen to alternative ideas, has begun to bore me.

Just go away.

He obviously listened to your ideas, as he was about the only person with enough tolerance for you to respond to them all directly. You should be thanking him for listening to you, you insufferable sack of s***

Familiar with the term "sychophant"??

Look it up ---- you'll see your 6th grade graduation picture.

"Sycophant"? That's not an appropriate use of that word. I didn't repeat then agree with any of his points. But I admire his patience with you.

 

[Czernobog]

So how about you explain the highlighted portion of your statement oh great intellect:

"Proof of God's existence CAN be manifested in a miracle ... but that only presumes that you accept the act AS a miracle."

Because - [expletive deleted] - if you don't accept it as a miracle, then you can't accept the "miracle" as being proof of His existence.

So, Fort Fun was right. You have developed a nice little circular, insular argument for you. Of course miracles are proof of God...if you believe it is a miracle. Of course, you're only going to believe it's a miracle, if you already believe in God. How convenient.

How asinine. Once again, you intentionally distort what was said.

If you believe in God, miracles are possible ... if you don't believe in God, miracles are impossible. Instead, you attribute it to all kinds of witchy things - like extra-terrestrials, unidentified, or unproven, scientific actions, or mass illusions of millions of people. It can't be a miracle, so it must be some other undefined source.

Therefore, in order to believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God (because God is the source of miracles). Otherwise, whatever happened falls into this nebulous area that you create to justify those things you don't understand.

All you did was rephrase what I just said you said: If you believe in God it is a miracle. If you believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God. Of course you added an adorable zinger: If science cannot current explain a thing, then it must be God, or more accurately it must be a "miracle", so God.

No, I did NOT add that zinger ---- once again, you've intentionally perverted what was said.

Frankly, your lack of logic and truth, coupled with your unwillingness to listen to alternative ideas, has begun to bore me.

Just go away.

That is exactly what you did: "if you don't believe in God, miracles are impossible. Instead, you attribute it to all kinds of witchy things - like extra-terrestrials, unidentified, or unproven, scientific actions, or mass illusions of millions of people. It can't be a miracle, so it must be some other undefined source."

If you don't like me exposing how absurd the things you keep saying are, quit making absurd assertions.

 

[Czernobog]

So, Fort Fun was right. You have developed a nice little circular, insular argument for you. Of course miracles are proof of God...if you believe it is a miracle. Of course, you're only going to believe it's a miracle, if you already believe in God. How convenient.

How asinine. Once again, you intentionally distort what was said.

If you believe in God, miracles are possible ... if you don't believe in God, miracles are impossible. Instead, you attribute it to all kinds of witchy things - like extra-terrestrials, unidentified, or unproven, scientific actions, or mass illusions of millions of people. It can't be a miracle, so it must be some other undefined source.

Therefore, in order to believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God (because God is the source of miracles). Otherwise, whatever happened falls into this nebulous area that you create to justify those things you don't understand.

All you did was rephrase what I just said you said: If you believe in God it is a miracle. If you believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God. Of course you added an adorable zinger: If science cannot current explain a thing, then it must be God, or more accurately it must be a "miracle", so God.

No, I did NOT add that zinger ---- once again, you've intentionally perverted what was said.

Frankly, your lack of logic and truth, coupled with your unwillingness to listen to alternative ideas, has begun to bore me.

Just go away.

He obviously listened to your ideas, as he was about the only person with enough tolerance for you to respond to them all directly. You should be thanking him for listening to you, you insufferable sack of s***

Familiar with the term "sychophant"??

Look it up ---- you'll see your 6th grade graduation picture.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Because - [expletive deleted] - if you don't accept it as a miracle, then you can't accept the "miracle" as being proof of His existence.

So, Fort Fun was right. You have developed a nice little circular, insular argument for you. Of course miracles are proof of God...if you believe it is a miracle. Of course, you're only going to believe it's a miracle, if you already believe in God. How convenient.

How asinine. Once again, you intentionally distort what was said.

If you believe in God, miracles are possible ... if you don't believe in God, miracles are impossible. Instead, you attribute it to all kinds of witchy things - like extra-terrestrials, unidentified, or unproven, scientific actions, or mass illusions of millions of people. It can't be a miracle, so it must be some other undefined source.

Therefore, in order to believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God (because God is the source of miracles). Otherwise, whatever happened falls into this nebulous area that you create to justify those things you don't understand.

All you did was rephrase what I just said you said: If you believe in God it is a miracle. If you believe it is a miracle, you must believe in God. Of course you added an adorable zinger: If science cannot current explain a thing, then it must be God, or more accurately it must be a "miracle", so God.

No, I did NOT add that zinger ---- once again, you've intentionally perverted what was said.

Frankly, your lack of logic and truth, coupled with your unwillingness to listen to alternative ideas, has begun to bore me.

Just go away.

That is exactly what you did: "if you don't believe in God, miracles are impossible. Instead, you attribute it to all kinds of witchy things - like extra-terrestrials, unidentified, or unproven, scientific actions, or mass illusions of millions of people. It can't be a miracle, so it must be some other undefined source."

If you don't like me exposing how absurd the things you keep saying are, quit making absurd assertions.

And anyway, assuming something "can't be a miracle " is the correct approach. Else, you could not begin even to try to explain anything. Once you've called it a miracle, you're done. No more discussion to be had. No explanations to be found. And that is exactly why conmen since the beginning of time have used the "miracle" meme. "Try my miracle cure!" Snake oil salesmen, one and all...

 

[sakinago]

It is, but there is one perspective of god (again this all written/handed down through spoken word by men) without the ambassador of god/god himself (which would be jesus according to Christianity) then there is another perspective of god after the ambassador figure.

See, herein lies the problem with your contention. You refer to the Old Testament as, "one perspective of god ... without the ambassador of god/god himself," Except that's not true. In fact the record of the Old Testament is that the people very much had a perspective of God through God, himself. Unless you are suggesting that the Old Testament is untrue, then throughout the Old testament God made direct, personal appearance to the people of the Old Testament, and gave direct, unambiguous commands to the people of the Old Testament. So, your claim that the people of the Old Testament were muddling along without a direct perspective of God is demonstrably untrue.

If there is the Christian god, why else would it feel the need to send down himself in human form and travel and do a lot of teaching? Unless that god had felt that something got lost in translation through its prophets and following generations. Both testaments state the unmatched goodness, wisdom, purity, holiness, whatever of god...

Except they don't. That is the point. There are various psalms, and writings purporting this nature of God, but in nearly every instance of God's actual interactions with the people of the Old Testament this is not the nature that he (God) exhibits. I, again, refer you to 1 Sam. 15:3. This was a direct interaction between Man, and God. Either that, or you are suggesting that Samuel intentionally lied when he said the He had a direct conversation with God.

so if the Christian god was prove, and ipso facto the Bible as well, you’d sill have the problem that then this god is indeed morally superior, good, loving, holy, wise, pure and whatever other positive adjective you want to insert, to a much more superior degree than anything you could ever imagine...which would most certainly mean that you’re idea of morality is obviously wrong.

Again, no you wouldn't. Because the actual actions, and commands of the Old Testament God does not bear out the propaganda written about the Old Testament God.

Yea you seem to be operating under the idea that God himself wrote both testaments, or that the author spoke directly to god, and then immediately jotted them down if they had not been written by Jesus directly, non of this is the case. What you are trying to do is insert your vision of the Christian god into a grossly simplified form through specific texts, texts that were written by people who had no concept of what the sun and moon actually are, what the stars actually are, things like gravity, chemicles, elements, atoms, basic physiology, as well as basic pathology, and thousands upon thousands of other countless insights that we take for granted everyday. On top of that your citing your POV of human morality of why god is wrong, vs A theoretical God that knows much more than the past, present, and future as we perceive it in our demention... is the ends justify the means wrong, yes, usually for a variety of reasons. But we’re not talking about a human, we’re talking about an all powerful being, that has no concept of error, unexpectedness, causality, and tons of other factors things you cannot even begin to take into consideration. Not to mention if we’re talking about the Christian god (like in this scenario) your talking about a god that is ultimately just, and loving, and pure...according to the Bible. So if you were to debate this god on his morality, and that you feel that at best he is operating on the ends justify the means, (which is pretty much what you’re saying), he could easily shoot back and say “well if you knew with 100% certainty about Hitler atrocities before he became a problem, and and an opportunity to kill him and save millions upon millions of lives...killing him is no longer an ends justifying means (even though it’s done beforehand when Hitler is still innocent at this point) because of the certainty, it becomes protection. Mind you this is just one of many arguments that a god could hold over you in this imaginary debate, the fact he knows infinitely more than you. As if this debate is necessary since if the Bible is true that states that god is just and love and all that would also be proven true to you at that point...I don’t know how many other ways to put it to you. You are still operating on this view of god as the guy in the MichealAngelo painting that is more powerful wizard that has human tendencies, vs just an imperceptible infinite being, which a theoretical god would have to be.

 

[Czernobog]

It is, but there is one perspective of god (again this all written/handed down through spoken word by men) without the ambassador of god/god himself (which would be jesus according to Christianity) then there is another perspective of god after the ambassador figure.

See, herein lies the problem with your contention. You refer to the Old Testament as, "one perspective of god ... without the ambassador of god/god himself," Except that's not true. In fact the record of the Old Testament is that the people very much had a perspective of God through God, himself. Unless you are suggesting that the Old Testament is untrue, then throughout the Old testament God made direct, personal appearance to the people of the Old Testament, and gave direct, unambiguous commands to the people of the Old Testament. So, your claim that the people of the Old Testament were muddling along without a direct perspective of God is demonstrably untrue.

If there is the Christian god, why else would it feel the need to send down himself in human form and travel and do a lot of teaching? Unless that god had felt that something got lost in translation through its prophets and following generations. Both testaments state the unmatched goodness, wisdom, purity, holiness, whatever of god...

Except they don't. That is the point. There are various psalms, and writings purporting this nature of God, but in nearly every instance of God's actual interactions with the people of the Old Testament this is not the nature that he (God) exhibits. I, again, refer you to 1 Sam. 15:3. This was a direct interaction between Man, and God. Either that, or you are suggesting that Samuel intentionally lied when he said the He had a direct conversation with God.

so if the Christian god was prove, and ipso facto the Bible as well, you’d sill have the problem that then this god is indeed morally superior, good, loving, holy, wise, pure and whatever other positive adjective you want to insert, to a much more superior degree than anything you could ever imagine...which would most certainly mean that you’re idea of morality is obviously wrong.

Again, no you wouldn't. Because the actual actions, and commands of the Old Testament God does not bear out the propaganda written about the Old Testament God.

Yea you seem to be operating under the idea that God himself wrote both testaments, or that the author spoke directly to god, and then immediately jotted them down if they had not been written by Jesus directly, non of this is the case. What you are trying to do is insert your vision of the Christian god into a grossly simplified form through specific texts, texts that were written by people who had no concept of what the sun and moon actually are, what the stars actually are, things like gravity, chemicles, elements, atoms, basic physiology, as well as basic pathology, and thousands upon thousands of other countless insights that we take for granted everyday. On top of that your citing your POV of human morality of why god is wrong, vs A theoretical God that knows much more than the past, present, and future as we perceive it in our demention... is the ends justify the means wrong, yes, usually for a variety of reasons. But we’re not talking about a human, we’re talking about an all powerful being, that has no concept of error, unexpectedness, causality, and tons of other factors things you cannot even begin to take into consideration. Not to mention if we’re talking about the Christian god (like in this scenario) your talking about a god that is ultimately just, and loving, and pure...according to the Bible. So if you were to debate this god on his morality, and that you feel that at best he is operating on the ends justify the means, (which is pretty much what you’re saying), he could easily shoot back and say “well if you knew with 100% certainty about Hitler atrocities before he became a problem, and and an opportunity to kill him and save millions upon millions of lives...killing him is no longer an ends justifying means (even though it’s done beforehand when Hitler is still innocent at this point) because of the certainty, it becomes protection. Mind you this is just one of many arguments that a god could hold over you in this imaginary debate, the fact he knows infinitely more than you. As if this debate is necessary since if the Bible is true that states that god is just and love and all that would also be proven true to you at that point...I don’t know how many other ways to put it to you. You are still operating on this view of god as the guy in the MichealAngelo painting that is more powerful wizard that has human tendencies, vs just an imperceptible infinite being, which a theoretical god would have to be.

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

 

[Spare_change]

It is, but there is one perspective of god (again this all written/handed down through spoken word by men) without the ambassador of god/god himself (which would be jesus according to Christianity) then there is another perspective of god after the ambassador figure.

See, herein lies the problem with your contention. You refer to the Old Testament as, "one perspective of god ... without the ambassador of god/god himself," Except that's not true. In fact the record of the Old Testament is that the people very much had a perspective of God through God, himself. Unless you are suggesting that the Old Testament is untrue, then throughout the Old testament God made direct, personal appearance to the people of the Old Testament, and gave direct, unambiguous commands to the people of the Old Testament. So, your claim that the people of the Old Testament were muddling along without a direct perspective of God is demonstrably untrue.

If there is the Christian god, why else would it feel the need to send down himself in human form and travel and do a lot of teaching? Unless that god had felt that something got lost in translation through its prophets and following generations. Both testaments state the unmatched goodness, wisdom, purity, holiness, whatever of god...

Except they don't. That is the point. There are various psalms, and writings purporting this nature of God, but in nearly every instance of God's actual interactions with the people of the Old Testament this is not the nature that he (God) exhibits. I, again, refer you to 1 Sam. 15:3. This was a direct interaction between Man, and God. Either that, or you are suggesting that Samuel intentionally lied when he said the He had a direct conversation with God.

so if the Christian god was prove, and ipso facto the Bible as well, you’d sill have the problem that then this god is indeed morally superior, good, loving, holy, wise, pure and whatever other positive adjective you want to insert, to a much more superior degree than anything you could ever imagine...which would most certainly mean that you’re idea of morality is obviously wrong.

Again, no you wouldn't. Because the actual actions, and commands of the Old Testament God does not bear out the propaganda written about the Old Testament God.

Yea you seem to be operating under the idea that God himself wrote both testaments, or that the author spoke directly to god, and then immediately jotted them down if they had not been written by Jesus directly, non of this is the case. What you are trying to do is insert your vision of the Christian god into a grossly simplified form through specific texts, texts that were written by people who had no concept of what the sun and moon actually are, what the stars actually are, things like gravity, chemicles, elements, atoms, basic physiology, as well as basic pathology, and thousands upon thousands of other countless insights that we take for granted everyday. On top of that your citing your POV of human morality of why god is wrong, vs A theoretical God that knows much more than the past, present, and future as we perceive it in our demention... is the ends justify the means wrong, yes, usually for a variety of reasons. But we’re not talking about a human, we’re talking about an all powerful being, that has no concept of error, unexpectedness, causality, and tons of other factors things you cannot even begin to take into consideration. Not to mention if we’re talking about the Christian god (like in this scenario) your talking about a god that is ultimately just, and loving, and pure...according to the Bible. So if you were to debate this god on his morality, and that you feel that at best he is operating on the ends justify the means, (which is pretty much what you’re saying), he could easily shoot back and say “well if you knew with 100% certainty about Hitler atrocities before he became a problem, and and an opportunity to kill him and save millions upon millions of lives...killing him is no longer an ends justifying means (even though it’s done beforehand when Hitler is still innocent at this point) because of the certainty, it becomes protection. Mind you this is just one of many arguments that a god could hold over you in this imaginary debate, the fact he knows infinitely more than you. As if this debate is necessary since if the Bible is true that states that god is just and love and all that would also be proven true to you at that point...I don’t know how many other ways to put it to you. You are still operating on this view of god as the guy in the MichealAngelo painting that is more powerful wizard that has human tendencies, vs just an imperceptible infinite being, which a theoretical god would have to be.

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

One simple statement negates your whole thought process:

"Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will"

Your assumption that since God knows the future, it negates free will is logically false. Just because God knows the future, does not negate the free will of Man. To keep it simple --- Man has a decision to make (either A or B) -- God knows the result of either of these actions (He knows what will happen if Man picks A, and he knows what will happen if Man picks B). He also knows which choice Man will take. So, he knows the decision and the result (cost) of the decision. But, because he in His infinite wisdom, has given Man free will, He allows Man to make his mistakes.

This is also why He does not (are you ready?) demand unbending, unyielding fealty and obedience. He recognizes the faults of man. He only demands that you recognize your sins, admit your sins, and atone for your sins. He does NOT expect you to live a sin-free life, but he DOES demand that you recognize and repent your errors.

So, Man stumbles thru life doing the best he can (or not, in some cases). God watches over him. That doesn't mean He protects Man from the consequences of his decisions. It only means He is keeping score.

 

[Czernobog]

It is, but there is one perspective of god (again this all written/handed down through spoken word by men) without the ambassador of god/god himself (which would be jesus according to Christianity) then there is another perspective of god after the ambassador figure.

See, herein lies the problem with your contention. You refer to the Old Testament as, "one perspective of god ... without the ambassador of god/god himself," Except that's not true. In fact the record of the Old Testament is that the people very much had a perspective of God through God, himself. Unless you are suggesting that the Old Testament is untrue, then throughout the Old testament God made direct, personal appearance to the people of the Old Testament, and gave direct, unambiguous commands to the people of the Old Testament. So, your claim that the people of the Old Testament were muddling along without a direct perspective of God is demonstrably untrue.

If there is the Christian god, why else would it feel the need to send down himself in human form and travel and do a lot of teaching? Unless that god had felt that something got lost in translation through its prophets and following generations. Both testaments state the unmatched goodness, wisdom, purity, holiness, whatever of god...

Except they don't. That is the point. There are various psalms, and writings purporting this nature of God, but in nearly every instance of God's actual interactions with the people of the Old Testament this is not the nature that he (God) exhibits. I, again, refer you to 1 Sam. 15:3. This was a direct interaction between Man, and God. Either that, or you are suggesting that Samuel intentionally lied when he said the He had a direct conversation with God.

so if the Christian god was prove, and ipso facto the Bible as well, you’d sill have the problem that then this god is indeed morally superior, good, loving, holy, wise, pure and whatever other positive adjective you want to insert, to a much more superior degree than anything you could ever imagine...which would most certainly mean that you’re idea of morality is obviously wrong.

Again, no you wouldn't. Because the actual actions, and commands of the Old Testament God does not bear out the propaganda written about the Old Testament God.

Yea you seem to be operating under the idea that God himself wrote both testaments, or that the author spoke directly to god, and then immediately jotted them down if they had not been written by Jesus directly, non of this is the case. What you are trying to do is insert your vision of the Christian god into a grossly simplified form through specific texts, texts that were written by people who had no concept of what the sun and moon actually are, what the stars actually are, things like gravity, chemicles, elements, atoms, basic physiology, as well as basic pathology, and thousands upon thousands of other countless insights that we take for granted everyday. On top of that your citing your POV of human morality of why god is wrong, vs A theoretical God that knows much more than the past, present, and future as we perceive it in our demention... is the ends justify the means wrong, yes, usually for a variety of reasons. But we’re not talking about a human, we’re talking about an all powerful being, that has no concept of error, unexpectedness, causality, and tons of other factors things you cannot even begin to take into consideration. Not to mention if we’re talking about the Christian god (like in this scenario) your talking about a god that is ultimately just, and loving, and pure...according to the Bible. So if you were to debate this god on his morality, and that you feel that at best he is operating on the ends justify the means, (which is pretty much what you’re saying), he could easily shoot back and say “well if you knew with 100% certainty about Hitler atrocities before he became a problem, and and an opportunity to kill him and save millions upon millions of lives...killing him is no longer an ends justifying means (even though it’s done beforehand when Hitler is still innocent at this point) because of the certainty, it becomes protection. Mind you this is just one of many arguments that a god could hold over you in this imaginary debate, the fact he knows infinitely more than you. As if this debate is necessary since if the Bible is true that states that god is just and love and all that would also be proven true to you at that point...I don’t know how many other ways to put it to you. You are still operating on this view of god as the guy in the MichealAngelo painting that is more powerful wizard that has human tendencies, vs just an imperceptible infinite being, which a theoretical god would have to be.

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

One simple statement negates your whole thought process:

"Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will"

Your assumption that since God knows the future, it negates free will is logically false. Just because God knows the future, does not negate the free will of Man. To keep it simple --- Man has a decision to make (either A or B) -- God knows the result of either of these actions (He knows what will happen if Man picks A, and he knows what will happen if Man picks B). He also knows which choice Man will take. So, he knows the decision and the result (cost) of the decision. But, because he in His infinite wisdom, has given Man free will, He allows Man to make his mistakes.

You are ignoring the reality. If God already knows the decision the man is going to make, that makes the decision a foregone conclusion. Therefore the man didn't have the opportunity to make a choice. The choice was already decided before the man was ever given the illusion of a choice. The only way the man actually had a choice, was if God didn't already know what choice would be made.

The process is in the example I provided. Did Jones have the choice to not mow the lawn on Saturday?

 

[sakinago]

It is, but there is one perspective of god (again this all written/handed down through spoken word by men) without the ambassador of god/god himself (which would be jesus according to Christianity) then there is another perspective of god after the ambassador figure.

See, herein lies the problem with your contention. You refer to the Old Testament as, "one perspective of god ... without the ambassador of god/god himself," Except that's not true. In fact the record of the Old Testament is that the people very much had a perspective of God through God, himself. Unless you are suggesting that the Old Testament is untrue, then throughout the Old testament God made direct, personal appearance to the people of the Old Testament, and gave direct, unambiguous commands to the people of the Old Testament. So, your claim that the people of the Old Testament were muddling along without a direct perspective of God is demonstrably untrue.

If there is the Christian god, why else would it feel the need to send down himself in human form and travel and do a lot of teaching? Unless that god had felt that something got lost in translation through its prophets and following generations. Both testaments state the unmatched goodness, wisdom, purity, holiness, whatever of god...

Except they don't. That is the point. There are various psalms, and writings purporting this nature of God, but in nearly every instance of God's actual interactions with the people of the Old Testament this is not the nature that he (God) exhibits. I, again, refer you to 1 Sam. 15:3. This was a direct interaction between Man, and God. Either that, or you are suggesting that Samuel intentionally lied when he said the He had a direct conversation with God.

so if the Christian god was prove, and ipso facto the Bible as well, you’d sill have the problem that then this god is indeed morally superior, good, loving, holy, wise, pure and whatever other positive adjective you want to insert, to a much more superior degree than anything you could ever imagine...which would most certainly mean that you’re idea of morality is obviously wrong.

Again, no you wouldn't. Because the actual actions, and commands of the Old Testament God does not bear out the propaganda written about the Old Testament God.

Yea you seem to be operating under the idea that God himself wrote both testaments, or that the author spoke directly to god, and then immediately jotted them down if they had not been written by Jesus directly, non of this is the case. What you are trying to do is insert your vision of the Christian god into a grossly simplified form through specific texts, texts that were written by people who had no concept of what the sun and moon actually are, what the stars actually are, things like gravity, chemicles, elements, atoms, basic physiology, as well as basic pathology, and thousands upon thousands of other countless insights that we take for granted everyday. On top of that your citing your POV of human morality of why god is wrong, vs A theoretical God that knows much more than the past, present, and future as we perceive it in our demention... is the ends justify the means wrong, yes, usually for a variety of reasons. But we’re not talking about a human, we’re talking about an all powerful being, that has no concept of error, unexpectedness, causality, and tons of other factors things you cannot even begin to take into consideration. Not to mention if we’re talking about the Christian god (like in this scenario) your talking about a god that is ultimately just, and loving, and pure...according to the Bible. So if you were to debate this god on his morality, and that you feel that at best he is operating on the ends justify the means, (which is pretty much what you’re saying), he could easily shoot back and say “well if you knew with 100% certainty about Hitler atrocities before he became a problem, and and an opportunity to kill him and save millions upon millions of lives...killing him is no longer an ends justifying means (even though it’s done beforehand when Hitler is still innocent at this point) because of the certainty, it becomes protection. Mind you this is just one of many arguments that a god could hold over you in this imaginary debate, the fact he knows infinitely more than you. As if this debate is necessary since if the Bible is true that states that god is just and love and all that would also be proven true to you at that point...I don’t know how many other ways to put it to you. You are still operating on this view of god as the guy in the MichealAngelo painting that is more powerful wizard that has human tendencies, vs just an imperceptible infinite being, which a theoretical god would have to be.

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

No and no. Bible is said to be god breathed or god inspired, still coming through the medium of men, according to Christianity. Which is a huge difference than 100% infallible as gods autobiography. The Bible is basically religious history, that is god centric, through the perception of men. If every single part of the Bible were crystal clear and infallible (in the way you are using the word infallible), there wouldn’t be so many different sects of Judeo-Christianity. Or possibly even Islam which I believe also derives their lineage from Abraham, and they are the proginy of ishmael, not Isaac (correct me if I’m wrong), and they are God’s true chosen people, and they still believe in jesus, but only as another Muhammad like prophet (obviously not as important as Muhammad) and that he only appeared to be dead on the cross and came too a few days later, there wasn’t a resurrection. And god spoke to Muhammad to set all that, and many other things, straight.

And your analogy does not work, especially not in einstienian physics. It’s a common misconception with the way we all view time, as well as pass through time at relatively the same rate, and also the fact that we have a hard time in not separating space and time as one fabric. Which is what made Einstein’s theory so out of this world revolutionary, because it’s such a hard concept to conceive even when explained to you 50 different ways. We exist in a 3.5 demential plain. There’s the obvious spatial aspect that is north, south, east, west, up, down, and everything in between. That’s easy. Then there’s the other .5 which seems easy to all of us here on earth, look at a clock that’s the time. Really it’s almost a single directional causality, you move through space, you also move through time, but time only goes in 1 direction vs the many directions than can be traveled in space. Gravity can also bend this space time fabric. So let’s say you create a wormhole, one entrance of that wormhole is anchored to earth space time, the other your super spaceship can create on command to send you back to that anchor. On your super spaceship you have a monitor to a video camera that uses quantum entanglement to upload you videos of earth in earth space time. This super spaceship can also travel really really fast, well say .9 times the speed of light, almost the speed of light. So you hop in, and take your ship out in circles at .9c for what would be a years time, in that year your quantum camera is showing you the earth pass by 1000years or so, and your able to see all that happens on the earth over the next 1000 years, because you are traveling through space time that much faster. You then are ready to open the other end of your wormhole and travel back to the first end you anchored back at earth. You go through, and it’s only one year later since you left earth in your super ship...now did you just eliminate all free will for the next 1000 years?

 

[Spare_change]

It is, but there is one perspective of god (again this all written/handed down through spoken word by men) without the ambassador of god/god himself (which would be jesus according to Christianity) then there is another perspective of god after the ambassador figure.

See, herein lies the problem with your contention. You refer to the Old Testament as, "one perspective of god ... without the ambassador of god/god himself," Except that's not true. In fact the record of the Old Testament is that the people very much had a perspective of God through God, himself. Unless you are suggesting that the Old Testament is untrue, then throughout the Old testament God made direct, personal appearance to the people of the Old Testament, and gave direct, unambiguous commands to the people of the Old Testament. So, your claim that the people of the Old Testament were muddling along without a direct perspective of God is demonstrably untrue.

If there is the Christian god, why else would it feel the need to send down himself in human form and travel and do a lot of teaching? Unless that god had felt that something got lost in translation through its prophets and following generations. Both testaments state the unmatched goodness, wisdom, purity, holiness, whatever of god...

Except they don't. That is the point. There are various psalms, and writings purporting this nature of God, but in nearly every instance of God's actual interactions with the people of the Old Testament this is not the nature that he (God) exhibits. I, again, refer you to 1 Sam. 15:3. This was a direct interaction between Man, and God. Either that, or you are suggesting that Samuel intentionally lied when he said the He had a direct conversation with God.

so if the Christian god was prove, and ipso facto the Bible as well, you’d sill have the problem that then this god is indeed morally superior, good, loving, holy, wise, pure and whatever other positive adjective you want to insert, to a much more superior degree than anything you could ever imagine...which would most certainly mean that you’re idea of morality is obviously wrong.

Again, no you wouldn't. Because the actual actions, and commands of the Old Testament God does not bear out the propaganda written about the Old Testament God.

Yea you seem to be operating under the idea that God himself wrote both testaments, or that the author spoke directly to god, and then immediately jotted them down if they had not been written by Jesus directly, non of this is the case. What you are trying to do is insert your vision of the Christian god into a grossly simplified form through specific texts, texts that were written by people who had no concept of what the sun and moon actually are, what the stars actually are, things like gravity, chemicles, elements, atoms, basic physiology, as well as basic pathology, and thousands upon thousands of other countless insights that we take for granted everyday. On top of that your citing your POV of human morality of why god is wrong, vs A theoretical God that knows much more than the past, present, and future as we perceive it in our demention... is the ends justify the means wrong, yes, usually for a variety of reasons. But we’re not talking about a human, we’re talking about an all powerful being, that has no concept of error, unexpectedness, causality, and tons of other factors things you cannot even begin to take into consideration. Not to mention if we’re talking about the Christian god (like in this scenario) your talking about a god that is ultimately just, and loving, and pure...according to the Bible. So if you were to debate this god on his morality, and that you feel that at best he is operating on the ends justify the means, (which is pretty much what you’re saying), he could easily shoot back and say “well if you knew with 100% certainty about Hitler atrocities before he became a problem, and and an opportunity to kill him and save millions upon millions of lives...killing him is no longer an ends justifying means (even though it’s done beforehand when Hitler is still innocent at this point) because of the certainty, it becomes protection. Mind you this is just one of many arguments that a god could hold over you in this imaginary debate, the fact he knows infinitely more than you. As if this debate is necessary since if the Bible is true that states that god is just and love and all that would also be proven true to you at that point...I don’t know how many other ways to put it to you. You are still operating on this view of god as the guy in the MichealAngelo painting that is more powerful wizard that has human tendencies, vs just an imperceptible infinite being, which a theoretical god would have to be.

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

One simple statement negates your whole thought process:

"Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will"

Your assumption that since God knows the future, it negates free will is logically false. Just because God knows the future, does not negate the free will of Man. To keep it simple --- Man has a decision to make (either A or B) -- God knows the result of either of these actions (He knows what will happen if Man picks A, and he knows what will happen if Man picks B). He also knows which choice Man will take. So, he knows the decision and the result (cost) of the decision. But, because he in His infinite wisdom, has given Man free will, He allows Man to make his mistakes.

You are ignoring the reality. If God already knows the decision the man is going to make, that makes the decision a foregone conclusion. Therefore the man didn't have the opportunity to make a choice. The choice was already decided before the man was ever given the illusion of a choice. The only way the man actually had a choice, was if God didn't already know what choice would be made.

The process is in the example I provided. Did Jones have the choice to not mow the lawn on Saturday?

It only makes the decision a foregone conclusion to God -- to the Man, it is still free will. God doesn't influence the choice, He only knows what choice will be made. Man can pick either A or B.

 

[Czernobog]

It is, but there is one perspective of god (again this all written/handed down through spoken word by men) without the ambassador of god/god himself (which would be jesus according to Christianity) then there is another perspective of god after the ambassador figure.

See, herein lies the problem with your contention. You refer to the Old Testament as, "one perspective of god ... without the ambassador of god/god himself," Except that's not true. In fact the record of the Old Testament is that the people very much had a perspective of God through God, himself. Unless you are suggesting that the Old Testament is untrue, then throughout the Old testament God made direct, personal appearance to the people of the Old Testament, and gave direct, unambiguous commands to the people of the Old Testament. So, your claim that the people of the Old Testament were muddling along without a direct perspective of God is demonstrably untrue.

If there is the Christian god, why else would it feel the need to send down himself in human form and travel and do a lot of teaching? Unless that god had felt that something got lost in translation through its prophets and following generations. Both testaments state the unmatched goodness, wisdom, purity, holiness, whatever of god...

Except they don't. That is the point. There are various psalms, and writings purporting this nature of God, but in nearly every instance of God's actual interactions with the people of the Old Testament this is not the nature that he (God) exhibits. I, again, refer you to 1 Sam. 15:3. This was a direct interaction between Man, and God. Either that, or you are suggesting that Samuel intentionally lied when he said the He had a direct conversation with God.

so if the Christian god was prove, and ipso facto the Bible as well, you’d sill have the problem that then this god is indeed morally superior, good, loving, holy, wise, pure and whatever other positive adjective you want to insert, to a much more superior degree than anything you could ever imagine...which would most certainly mean that you’re idea of morality is obviously wrong.

Again, no you wouldn't. Because the actual actions, and commands of the Old Testament God does not bear out the propaganda written about the Old Testament God.

Yea you seem to be operating under the idea that God himself wrote both testaments, or that the author spoke directly to god, and then immediately jotted them down if they had not been written by Jesus directly, non of this is the case. What you are trying to do is insert your vision of the Christian god into a grossly simplified form through specific texts, texts that were written by people who had no concept of what the sun and moon actually are, what the stars actually are, things like gravity, chemicles, elements, atoms, basic physiology, as well as basic pathology, and thousands upon thousands of other countless insights that we take for granted everyday. On top of that your citing your POV of human morality of why god is wrong, vs A theoretical God that knows much more than the past, present, and future as we perceive it in our demention... is the ends justify the means wrong, yes, usually for a variety of reasons. But we’re not talking about a human, we’re talking about an all powerful being, that has no concept of error, unexpectedness, causality, and tons of other factors things you cannot even begin to take into consideration. Not to mention if we’re talking about the Christian god (like in this scenario) your talking about a god that is ultimately just, and loving, and pure...according to the Bible. So if you were to debate this god on his morality, and that you feel that at best he is operating on the ends justify the means, (which is pretty much what you’re saying), he could easily shoot back and say “well if you knew with 100% certainty about Hitler atrocities before he became a problem, and and an opportunity to kill him and save millions upon millions of lives...killing him is no longer an ends justifying means (even though it’s done beforehand when Hitler is still innocent at this point) because of the certainty, it becomes protection. Mind you this is just one of many arguments that a god could hold over you in this imaginary debate, the fact he knows infinitely more than you. As if this debate is necessary since if the Bible is true that states that god is just and love and all that would also be proven true to you at that point...I don’t know how many other ways to put it to you. You are still operating on this view of god as the guy in the MichealAngelo painting that is more powerful wizard that has human tendencies, vs just an imperceptible infinite being, which a theoretical god would have to be.

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

No and no. Bible is said to be god breathed or god inspired, still coming through the medium of men, according to Christianity. Which is a huge difference than 100% infallible as gods autobiography. The Bible is basically religious history, that is god centric, through the perception of men. If every single part of the Bible were crystal clear and infallible (in the way you are using the word infallible), there wouldn’t be so many different sects of Judeo-Christianity. Or possibly even Islam which I believe also derives their lineage from Abraham, and they are the proginy of ishmael, not Isaac (correct me if I’m wrong), and they are God’s true chosen people, and they still believe in jesus, but only as another Muhammad like prophet (obviously not as important as Muhammad) and that he only appeared to be dead on the cross and came too a few days later, there wasn’t a resurrection. And god spoke to Muhammad to set all that, and many other things, straight.

Then we're back to the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. Why should anyone give any more credence to the bible, than any other book of myths, and fairy tales?

And your analogy does not work, especially not in einstienian physics. It’s a common misconception with the way we all view time, as well as pass through time at relatively the same rate, and also the fact that we have a hard time in not separating space and time as one fabric. Which is what made Einstein’s theory so out of this world revolutionary, because it’s such a hard concept to conceive even when explained to you 50 different ways. We exist in a 3.5 demential plain. There’s the obvious spatial aspect that is north, south, east, west, up, down, and everything in between. That’s easy. Then there’s the other .5 which seems easy to all of us here on earth, look at a clock that’s the time. Really it’s almost a single directional causality, you move through space, you also move through time, but time only goes in 1 direction vs the many directions than can be traveled in space. Gravity can also bend this space time fabric. So let’s say you create a wormhole, one entrance of that wormhole is anchored to earth space time, the other your super spaceship can create on command to send you back to that anchor. On your super spaceship you have a monitor to a video camera that uses quantum entanglement to upload you videos of earth in earth space time. This super spaceship can also travel really really fast, well say .9 times the speed of light, almost the speed of light. So you hop in, and take your ship out in circles at .9c for what would be a years time, in that year your quantum camera is showing you the earth pass by 1000years or so, and your able to see all that happens on the earth over the next 1000 years, because you are traveling through space time that much faster. You then are ready to open the other end of your wormhole and travel back to the first end you anchored back at earth. You go through, and it’s only one year later since you left earth in your super ship...now did you just eliminate all free will for the next 1000 years?

Not the same at all. As I'm sure you know, the Einstein/Rosen paradox only resolves itself with a multiverse. Hence every decision results in every choice being made, and a new universe/dimension/reality branches off with each choice. If that is your contention then you have just taken your faith without evidence to a whole new level. Because not only do you believe in an eternal God, but that God exists outside, and monitors, literally, billions of universes, with that number growing exponentially with every decision offered to every person in the world. It also mean that Hell is populated by every single person on the planet, while simultaneously being populated by none of them, and heaven being populated by every single person on the planet. Because it means that somewhere, in the infinite universes is one where every person who was giving the choice to be a Christian, or not, chose to be a Christian, just as there is a universe out there, where each if those people chose to not be a person.

You see how quickly trying to make your God a universe spanning, time travelling, Super Wizard, while conforming to the Einsteinian universe, quickly devolves into chaos, right

 

[Czernobog]

See, herein lies the problem with your contention. You refer to the Old Testament as, "one perspective of god ... without the ambassador of god/god himself," Except that's not true. In fact the record of the Old Testament is that the people very much had a perspective of God through God, himself. Unless you are suggesting that the Old Testament is untrue, then throughout the Old testament God made direct, personal appearance to the people of the Old Testament, and gave direct, unambiguous commands to the people of the Old Testament. So, your claim that the people of the Old Testament were muddling along without a direct perspective of God is demonstrably untrue.

Except they don't. That is the point. There are various psalms, and writings purporting this nature of God, but in nearly every instance of God's actual interactions with the people of the Old Testament this is not the nature that he (God) exhibits. I, again, refer you to 1 Sam. 15:3. This was a direct interaction between Man, and God. Either that, or you are suggesting that Samuel intentionally lied when he said the He had a direct conversation with God.

Again, no you wouldn't. Because the actual actions, and commands of the Old Testament God does not bear out the propaganda written about the Old Testament God.

Yea you seem to be operating under the idea that God himself wrote both testaments, or that the author spoke directly to god, and then immediately jotted them down if they had not been written by Jesus directly, non of this is the case. What you are trying to do is insert your vision of the Christian god into a grossly simplified form through specific texts, texts that were written by people who had no concept of what the sun and moon actually are, what the stars actually are, things like gravity, chemicles, elements, atoms, basic physiology, as well as basic pathology, and thousands upon thousands of other countless insights that we take for granted everyday. On top of that your citing your POV of human morality of why god is wrong, vs A theoretical God that knows much more than the past, present, and future as we perceive it in our demention... is the ends justify the means wrong, yes, usually for a variety of reasons. But we’re not talking about a human, we’re talking about an all powerful being, that has no concept of error, unexpectedness, causality, and tons of other factors things you cannot even begin to take into consideration. Not to mention if we’re talking about the Christian god (like in this scenario) your talking about a god that is ultimately just, and loving, and pure...according to the Bible. So if you were to debate this god on his morality, and that you feel that at best he is operating on the ends justify the means, (which is pretty much what you’re saying), he could easily shoot back and say “well if you knew with 100% certainty about Hitler atrocities before he became a problem, and and an opportunity to kill him and save millions upon millions of lives...killing him is no longer an ends justifying means (even though it’s done beforehand when Hitler is still innocent at this point) because of the certainty, it becomes protection. Mind you this is just one of many arguments that a god could hold over you in this imaginary debate, the fact he knows infinitely more than you. As if this debate is necessary since if the Bible is true that states that god is just and love and all that would also be proven true to you at that point...I don’t know how many other ways to put it to you. You are still operating on this view of god as the guy in the MichealAngelo painting that is more powerful wizard that has human tendencies, vs just an imperceptible infinite being, which a theoretical god would have to be.

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

One simple statement negates your whole thought process:

"Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will"

Your assumption that since God knows the future, it negates free will is logically false. Just because God knows the future, does not negate the free will of Man. To keep it simple --- Man has a decision to make (either A or B) -- God knows the result of either of these actions (He knows what will happen if Man picks A, and he knows what will happen if Man picks B). He also knows which choice Man will take. So, he knows the decision and the result (cost) of the decision. But, because he in His infinite wisdom, has given Man free will, He allows Man to make his mistakes.

You are ignoring the reality. If God already knows the decision the man is going to make, that makes the decision a foregone conclusion. Therefore the man didn't have the opportunity to make a choice. The choice was already decided before the man was ever given the illusion of a choice. The only way the man actually had a choice, was if God didn't already know what choice would be made.

The process is in the example I provided. Did Jones have the choice to not mow the lawn on Saturday?

It only makes the decision a foregone conclusion to God -- to the Man, it is still free will. God doesn't influence the choice, He only knows what choice will be made. Man can pick either A or B.

So what?!?! GOD, IF HE EXISTS, IS THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF REALITY. So, if it is a foregone conclusion to God, then it is a foregone conclusion, and our sense of free will is nothing more than an illusion. You are, literally, saying that we have free will only from our limited perspective. That is the very definition of the Illusion of Free Will!!!!

 

[Spare_change]

Yea you seem to be operating under the idea that God himself wrote both testaments, or that the author spoke directly to god, and then immediately jotted them down if they had not been written by Jesus directly, non of this is the case. What you are trying to do is insert your vision of the Christian god into a grossly simplified form through specific texts, texts that were written by people who had no concept of what the sun and moon actually are, what the stars actually are, things like gravity, chemicles, elements, atoms, basic physiology, as well as basic pathology, and thousands upon thousands of other countless insights that we take for granted everyday. On top of that your citing your POV of human morality of why god is wrong, vs A theoretical God that knows much more than the past, present, and future as we perceive it in our demention... is the ends justify the means wrong, yes, usually for a variety of reasons. But we’re not talking about a human, we’re talking about an all powerful being, that has no concept of error, unexpectedness, causality, and tons of other factors things you cannot even begin to take into consideration. Not to mention if we’re talking about the Christian god (like in this scenario) your talking about a god that is ultimately just, and loving, and pure...according to the Bible. So if you were to debate this god on his morality, and that you feel that at best he is operating on the ends justify the means, (which is pretty much what you’re saying), he could easily shoot back and say “well if you knew with 100% certainty about Hitler atrocities before he became a problem, and and an opportunity to kill him and save millions upon millions of lives...killing him is no longer an ends justifying means (even though it’s done beforehand when Hitler is still innocent at this point) because of the certainty, it becomes protection. Mind you this is just one of many arguments that a god could hold over you in this imaginary debate, the fact he knows infinitely more than you. As if this debate is necessary since if the Bible is true that states that god is just and love and all that would also be proven true to you at that point...I don’t know how many other ways to put it to you. You are still operating on this view of god as the guy in the MichealAngelo painting that is more powerful wizard that has human tendencies, vs just an imperceptible infinite being, which a theoretical god would have to be.

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

One simple statement negates your whole thought process:

"Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will"

Your assumption that since God knows the future, it negates free will is logically false. Just because God knows the future, does not negate the free will of Man. To keep it simple --- Man has a decision to make (either A or B) -- God knows the result of either of these actions (He knows what will happen if Man picks A, and he knows what will happen if Man picks B). He also knows which choice Man will take. So, he knows the decision and the result (cost) of the decision. But, because he in His infinite wisdom, has given Man free will, He allows Man to make his mistakes.

You are ignoring the reality. If God already knows the decision the man is going to make, that makes the decision a foregone conclusion. Therefore the man didn't have the opportunity to make a choice. The choice was already decided before the man was ever given the illusion of a choice. The only way the man actually had a choice, was if God didn't already know what choice would be made.

The process is in the example I provided. Did Jones have the choice to not mow the lawn on Saturday?

It only makes the decision a foregone conclusion to God -- to the Man, it is still free will. God doesn't influence the choice, He only knows what choice will be made. Man can pick either A or B.

So what?!?! GOD, IF HE EXISTS, IS THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF REALITY. So, if it is a foregone conclusion to God, then it is a foregone conclusion, and our sense of free will is nothing more than an illusion. You are, literally, saying that we have free will only from our limited perspective. That is the very definition of the Illusion of Free Will!!!!

And the wheels on the bus
go round and round
round and round
and the wheels on the bus
go round and round

You're going to screw yourself right into the dirt of false assumptions.

 

[Czernobog]

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

One simple statement negates your whole thought process:

"Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will"

Your assumption that since God knows the future, it negates free will is logically false. Just because God knows the future, does not negate the free will of Man. To keep it simple --- Man has a decision to make (either A or B) -- God knows the result of either of these actions (He knows what will happen if Man picks A, and he knows what will happen if Man picks B). He also knows which choice Man will take. So, he knows the decision and the result (cost) of the decision. But, because he in His infinite wisdom, has given Man free will, He allows Man to make his mistakes.

You are ignoring the reality. If God already knows the decision the man is going to make, that makes the decision a foregone conclusion. Therefore the man didn't have the opportunity to make a choice. The choice was already decided before the man was ever given the illusion of a choice. The only way the man actually had a choice, was if God didn't already know what choice would be made.

The process is in the example I provided. Did Jones have the choice to not mow the lawn on Saturday?

It only makes the decision a foregone conclusion to God -- to the Man, it is still free will. God doesn't influence the choice, He only knows what choice will be made. Man can pick either A or B.

So what?!?! GOD, IF HE EXISTS, IS THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF REALITY. So, if it is a foregone conclusion to God, then it is a foregone conclusion, and our sense of free will is nothing more than an illusion. You are, literally, saying that we have free will only from our limited perspective. That is the very definition of the Illusion of Free Will!!!!

And the wheels on the bus
go round and round
round and round
and the wheels on the bus
go round and round

You're going to screw yourself right into the dirt of false assumptions.

FLAG ON THE PLAY:

​

 

[sakinago]

It is, but there is one perspective of god (again this all written/handed down through spoken word by men) without the ambassador of god/god himself (which would be jesus according to Christianity) then there is another perspective of god after the ambassador figure.

See, herein lies the problem with your contention. You refer to the Old Testament as, "one perspective of god ... without the ambassador of god/god himself," Except that's not true. In fact the record of the Old Testament is that the people very much had a perspective of God through God, himself. Unless you are suggesting that the Old Testament is untrue, then throughout the Old testament God made direct, personal appearance to the people of the Old Testament, and gave direct, unambiguous commands to the people of the Old Testament. So, your claim that the people of the Old Testament were muddling along without a direct perspective of God is demonstrably untrue.

If there is the Christian god, why else would it feel the need to send down himself in human form and travel and do a lot of teaching? Unless that god had felt that something got lost in translation through its prophets and following generations. Both testaments state the unmatched goodness, wisdom, purity, holiness, whatever of god...

Except they don't. That is the point. There are various psalms, and writings purporting this nature of God, but in nearly every instance of God's actual interactions with the people of the Old Testament this is not the nature that he (God) exhibits. I, again, refer you to 1 Sam. 15:3. This was a direct interaction between Man, and God. Either that, or you are suggesting that Samuel intentionally lied when he said the He had a direct conversation with God.

so if the Christian god was prove, and ipso facto the Bible as well, you’d sill have the problem that then this god is indeed morally superior, good, loving, holy, wise, pure and whatever other positive adjective you want to insert, to a much more superior degree than anything you could ever imagine...which would most certainly mean that you’re idea of morality is obviously wrong.

Again, no you wouldn't. Because the actual actions, and commands of the Old Testament God does not bear out the propaganda written about the Old Testament God.

Yea you seem to be operating under the idea that God himself wrote both testaments, or that the author spoke directly to god, and then immediately jotted them down if they had not been written by Jesus directly, non of this is the case. What you are trying to do is insert your vision of the Christian god into a grossly simplified form through specific texts, texts that were written by people who had no concept of what the sun and moon actually are, what the stars actually are, things like gravity, chemicles, elements, atoms, basic physiology, as well as basic pathology, and thousands upon thousands of other countless insights that we take for granted everyday. On top of that your citing your POV of human morality of why god is wrong, vs A theoretical God that knows much more than the past, present, and future as we perceive it in our demention... is the ends justify the means wrong, yes, usually for a variety of reasons. But we’re not talking about a human, we’re talking about an all powerful being, that has no concept of error, unexpectedness, causality, and tons of other factors things you cannot even begin to take into consideration. Not to mention if we’re talking about the Christian god (like in this scenario) your talking about a god that is ultimately just, and loving, and pure...according to the Bible. So if you were to debate this god on his morality, and that you feel that at best he is operating on the ends justify the means, (which is pretty much what you’re saying), he could easily shoot back and say “well if you knew with 100% certainty about Hitler atrocities before he became a problem, and and an opportunity to kill him and save millions upon millions of lives...killing him is no longer an ends justifying means (even though it’s done beforehand when Hitler is still innocent at this point) because of the certainty, it becomes protection. Mind you this is just one of many arguments that a god could hold over you in this imaginary debate, the fact he knows infinitely more than you. As if this debate is necessary since if the Bible is true that states that god is just and love and all that would also be proven true to you at that point...I don’t know how many other ways to put it to you. You are still operating on this view of god as the guy in the MichealAngelo painting that is more powerful wizard that has human tendencies, vs just an imperceptible infinite being, which a theoretical god would have to be.

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

No and no. Bible is said to be god breathed or god inspired, still coming through the medium of men, according to Christianity. Which is a huge difference than 100% infallible as gods autobiography. The Bible is basically religious history, that is god centric, through the perception of men. If every single part of the Bible were crystal clear and infallible (in the way you are using the word infallible), there wouldn’t be so many different sects of Judeo-Christianity. Or possibly even Islam which I believe also derives their lineage from Abraham, and they are the proginy of ishmael, not Isaac (correct me if I’m wrong), and they are God’s true chosen people, and they still believe in jesus, but only as another Muhammad like prophet (obviously not as important as Muhammad) and that he only appeared to be dead on the cross and came too a few days later, there wasn’t a resurrection. And god spoke to Muhammad to set all that, and many other things, straight.

Then we're back to the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. Why should anyone give any more credence to the bible, than any other book of myths, and fairy tales?

And your analogy does not work, especially not in einstienian physics. It’s a common misconception with the way we all view time, as well as pass through time at relatively the same rate, and also the fact that we have a hard time in not separating space and time as one fabric. Which is what made Einstein’s theory so out of this world revolutionary, because it’s such a hard concept to conceive even when explained to you 50 different ways. We exist in a 3.5 demential plain. There’s the obvious spatial aspect that is north, south, east, west, up, down, and everything in between. That’s easy. Then there’s the other .5 which seems easy to all of us here on earth, look at a clock that’s the time. Really it’s almost a single directional causality, you move through space, you also move through time, but time only goes in 1 direction vs the many directions than can be traveled in space. Gravity can also bend this space time fabric. So let’s say you create a wormhole, one entrance of that wormhole is anchored to earth space time, the other your super spaceship can create on command to send you back to that anchor. On your super spaceship you have a monitor to a video camera that uses quantum entanglement to upload you videos of earth in earth space time. This super spaceship can also travel really really fast, well say .9 times the speed of light, almost the speed of light. So you hop in, and take your ship out in circles at .9c for what would be a years time, in that year your quantum camera is showing you the earth pass by 1000years or so, and your able to see all that happens on the earth over the next 1000 years, because you are traveling through space time that much faster. You then are ready to open the other end of your wormhole and travel back to the first end you anchored back at earth. You go through, and it’s only one year later since you left earth in your super ship...now did you just eliminate all free will for the next 1000 years?

Not the same at all. As I'm sure you know, the Einstein/Rosen paradox only resolves itself with a multiverse. Hence every decision results in every choice being made, and a new universe/dimension/reality branches off with each choice. If that is your contention then you have just taken your faith without evidence to a whole new level. Because not only do you believe in an eternal God, but that God exists outside, and monitors, literally, billions of universes, with that number growing exponentially with every decision offered to every person in the world. It also mean that Hell is populated by every single person on the planet, while simultaneously being populated by none of them, and heaven being populated by every single person on the planet. Because it means that somewhere, in the infinite universes is one where every person who was giving the choice to be a Christian, or not, chose to be a Christian, just as there is a universe out there, where each if those people chose to not be a person.

You see how quickly trying to make your God a universe spanning, time travelling, Super Wizard, while conforming to the Einsteinian universe, quickly devolves into chaos, right

Jesus this is exactly what I’m accusing you of, of limiting and thinking of a god in this single universe, as we perceive it. I wasn’t using god in my example, but Instead I used YOU in a theoretically possible example using the few rules we think we have of our own perception of reality, to show that knowing the future doesn’t eliminate free will. And the multiverse is ONE POSSIBLE solution to the paradox...the paradox that exists because of how we experience time. And the multiverse theory doesn’t even mean that there are multiple different universes all next to each other, like the guys like hawking cling too (because his famous information is destroyed in a black hole that scratched heads for years was pretty much mathematically debunked) so he wanted to change his theory to it’s not destroyed but it goes into another universe in the multiverse (hawking is very smart at all, but his claim to fame is more about over coming his disease than it is scientific breakthrough)...anyway like I way saying, multiverse doesn’t necessarily mean there is an infinite number of universes, just that the what is reality is the one that happens. It’s a fun theory to play around with, and I get the whole cold spot question, but that’s someone just saying hey...maybe the cold spot is the touching of another multiverse. And a multiverse, as you think of it, also does not eliminate god, or heaven or hell, all of which would have to exist outside of the multiverse. The whole problem with all this suppositions you are getting into, is that there’s so much freaking out there that we don’t know. Take for instance the fact we now find ourselves yet again scratching our heads to another paradox we’re facing in the fact that there is too much symmetry among matter and anti-matter than non of this should exist. Now one could say maybe that’s god hand or whatever holding it all together (or in this case separated), or maybe we just don’t have enough information yet, or maybe we got the way the universe works wrong again. Think of it like this what we know now is represented by the number six, with how much stuff we don’t know and considering when we do find more knowledge it usually leads to more question... when we make these grand and fairly specific suppositions that’s like dividing by 0 (that would represent what we don’t know).

And don’t assume things about me, if anything I’m agnostic. My whole thing is you can’t prove or disprove god, and it would be assumed that if there was a god that gave us the ability to believe or not believe, that the god would want there to be a lack of proof, while proof wouldn’t eliminate free will...there wouldn’t be a sane reason to not believe. If you changed your OP to if God was proven, then I don’t think it’d be the Christian god because of XYZ, that’d be a better question.

 

[sakinago]

Yea you seem to be operating under the idea that God himself wrote both testaments, or that the author spoke directly to god, and then immediately jotted them down if they had not been written by Jesus directly, non of this is the case. What you are trying to do is insert your vision of the Christian god into a grossly simplified form through specific texts, texts that were written by people who had no concept of what the sun and moon actually are, what the stars actually are, things like gravity, chemicles, elements, atoms, basic physiology, as well as basic pathology, and thousands upon thousands of other countless insights that we take for granted everyday. On top of that your citing your POV of human morality of why god is wrong, vs A theoretical God that knows much more than the past, present, and future as we perceive it in our demention... is the ends justify the means wrong, yes, usually for a variety of reasons. But we’re not talking about a human, we’re talking about an all powerful being, that has no concept of error, unexpectedness, causality, and tons of other factors things you cannot even begin to take into consideration. Not to mention if we’re talking about the Christian god (like in this scenario) your talking about a god that is ultimately just, and loving, and pure...according to the Bible. So if you were to debate this god on his morality, and that you feel that at best he is operating on the ends justify the means, (which is pretty much what you’re saying), he could easily shoot back and say “well if you knew with 100% certainty about Hitler atrocities before he became a problem, and and an opportunity to kill him and save millions upon millions of lives...killing him is no longer an ends justifying means (even though it’s done beforehand when Hitler is still innocent at this point) because of the certainty, it becomes protection. Mind you this is just one of many arguments that a god could hold over you in this imaginary debate, the fact he knows infinitely more than you. As if this debate is necessary since if the Bible is true that states that god is just and love and all that would also be proven true to you at that point...I don’t know how many other ways to put it to you. You are still operating on this view of god as the guy in the MichealAngelo painting that is more powerful wizard that has human tendencies, vs just an imperceptible infinite being, which a theoretical god would have to be.

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

One simple statement negates your whole thought process:

"Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will"

Your assumption that since God knows the future, it negates free will is logically false. Just because God knows the future, does not negate the free will of Man. To keep it simple --- Man has a decision to make (either A or B) -- God knows the result of either of these actions (He knows what will happen if Man picks A, and he knows what will happen if Man picks B). He also knows which choice Man will take. So, he knows the decision and the result (cost) of the decision. But, because he in His infinite wisdom, has given Man free will, He allows Man to make his mistakes.

You are ignoring the reality. If God already knows the decision the man is going to make, that makes the decision a foregone conclusion. Therefore the man didn't have the opportunity to make a choice. The choice was already decided before the man was ever given the illusion of a choice. The only way the man actually had a choice, was if God didn't already know what choice would be made.

The process is in the example I provided. Did Jones have the choice to not mow the lawn on Saturday?

It only makes the decision a foregone conclusion to God -- to the Man, it is still free will. God doesn't influence the choice, He only knows what choice will be made. Man can pick either A or B.

So what?!?! GOD, IF HE EXISTS, IS THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF REALITY. So, if it is a foregone conclusion to God, then it is a foregone conclusion, and our sense of free will is nothing more than an illusion. You are, literally, saying that we have free will only from our limited perspective. That is the very definition of the Illusion of Free Will!!!!

The definition of the illusion of free will, sure, but you just kind of defined the illusion of free will, and then assumed it. Just because someone or something knows the future, that in no way shape or form eliminates free will, the illusion of free will is just an easier way to simplify it for us, in our minds. Time itself could be the real illusion, either way, we are limited in how we travel through time.

 

[Czernobog]

See, herein lies the problem with your contention. You refer to the Old Testament as, "one perspective of god ... without the ambassador of god/god himself," Except that's not true. In fact the record of the Old Testament is that the people very much had a perspective of God through God, himself. Unless you are suggesting that the Old Testament is untrue, then throughout the Old testament God made direct, personal appearance to the people of the Old Testament, and gave direct, unambiguous commands to the people of the Old Testament. So, your claim that the people of the Old Testament were muddling along without a direct perspective of God is demonstrably untrue.

Except they don't. That is the point. There are various psalms, and writings purporting this nature of God, but in nearly every instance of God's actual interactions with the people of the Old Testament this is not the nature that he (God) exhibits. I, again, refer you to 1 Sam. 15:3. This was a direct interaction between Man, and God. Either that, or you are suggesting that Samuel intentionally lied when he said the He had a direct conversation with God.

Again, no you wouldn't. Because the actual actions, and commands of the Old Testament God does not bear out the propaganda written about the Old Testament God.

Yea you seem to be operating under the idea that God himself wrote both testaments, or that the author spoke directly to god, and then immediately jotted them down if they had not been written by Jesus directly, non of this is the case. What you are trying to do is insert your vision of the Christian god into a grossly simplified form through specific texts, texts that were written by people who had no concept of what the sun and moon actually are, what the stars actually are, things like gravity, chemicles, elements, atoms, basic physiology, as well as basic pathology, and thousands upon thousands of other countless insights that we take for granted everyday. On top of that your citing your POV of human morality of why god is wrong, vs A theoretical God that knows much more than the past, present, and future as we perceive it in our demention... is the ends justify the means wrong, yes, usually for a variety of reasons. But we’re not talking about a human, we’re talking about an all powerful being, that has no concept of error, unexpectedness, causality, and tons of other factors things you cannot even begin to take into consideration. Not to mention if we’re talking about the Christian god (like in this scenario) your talking about a god that is ultimately just, and loving, and pure...according to the Bible. So if you were to debate this god on his morality, and that you feel that at best he is operating on the ends justify the means, (which is pretty much what you’re saying), he could easily shoot back and say “well if you knew with 100% certainty about Hitler atrocities before he became a problem, and and an opportunity to kill him and save millions upon millions of lives...killing him is no longer an ends justifying means (even though it’s done beforehand when Hitler is still innocent at this point) because of the certainty, it becomes protection. Mind you this is just one of many arguments that a god could hold over you in this imaginary debate, the fact he knows infinitely more than you. As if this debate is necessary since if the Bible is true that states that god is just and love and all that would also be proven true to you at that point...I don’t know how many other ways to put it to you. You are still operating on this view of god as the guy in the MichealAngelo painting that is more powerful wizard that has human tendencies, vs just an imperceptible infinite being, which a theoretical god would have to be.

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

No and no. Bible is said to be god breathed or god inspired, still coming through the medium of men, according to Christianity. Which is a huge difference than 100% infallible as gods autobiography. The Bible is basically religious history, that is god centric, through the perception of men. If every single part of the Bible were crystal clear and infallible (in the way you are using the word infallible), there wouldn’t be so many different sects of Judeo-Christianity. Or possibly even Islam which I believe also derives their lineage from Abraham, and they are the proginy of ishmael, not Isaac (correct me if I’m wrong), and they are God’s true chosen people, and they still believe in jesus, but only as another Muhammad like prophet (obviously not as important as Muhammad) and that he only appeared to be dead on the cross and came too a few days later, there wasn’t a resurrection. And god spoke to Muhammad to set all that, and many other things, straight.

Then we're back to the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. Why should anyone give any more credence to the bible, than any other book of myths, and fairy tales?

And your analogy does not work, especially not in einstienian physics. It’s a common misconception with the way we all view time, as well as pass through time at relatively the same rate, and also the fact that we have a hard time in not separating space and time as one fabric. Which is what made Einstein’s theory so out of this world revolutionary, because it’s such a hard concept to conceive even when explained to you 50 different ways. We exist in a 3.5 demential plain. There’s the obvious spatial aspect that is north, south, east, west, up, down, and everything in between. That’s easy. Then there’s the other .5 which seems easy to all of us here on earth, look at a clock that’s the time. Really it’s almost a single directional causality, you move through space, you also move through time, but time only goes in 1 direction vs the many directions than can be traveled in space. Gravity can also bend this space time fabric. So let’s say you create a wormhole, one entrance of that wormhole is anchored to earth space time, the other your super spaceship can create on command to send you back to that anchor. On your super spaceship you have a monitor to a video camera that uses quantum entanglement to upload you videos of earth in earth space time. This super spaceship can also travel really really fast, well say .9 times the speed of light, almost the speed of light. So you hop in, and take your ship out in circles at .9c for what would be a years time, in that year your quantum camera is showing you the earth pass by 1000years or so, and your able to see all that happens on the earth over the next 1000 years, because you are traveling through space time that much faster. You then are ready to open the other end of your wormhole and travel back to the first end you anchored back at earth. You go through, and it’s only one year later since you left earth in your super ship...now did you just eliminate all free will for the next 1000 years?

Not the same at all. As I'm sure you know, the Einstein/Rosen paradox only resolves itself with a multiverse. Hence every decision results in every choice being made, and a new universe/dimension/reality branches off with each choice. If that is your contention then you have just taken your faith without evidence to a whole new level. Because not only do you believe in an eternal God, but that God exists outside, and monitors, literally, billions of universes, with that number growing exponentially with every decision offered to every person in the world. It also mean that Hell is populated by every single person on the planet, while simultaneously being populated by none of them, and heaven being populated by every single person on the planet. Because it means that somewhere, in the infinite universes is one where every person who was giving the choice to be a Christian, or not, chose to be a Christian, just as there is a universe out there, where each if those people chose to not be a person.

You see how quickly trying to make your God a universe spanning, time travelling, Super Wizard, while conforming to the Einsteinian universe, quickly devolves into chaos, right

Jesus this is exactly what I’m accusing you of, of limiting and thinking of a god in this single universe, as we perceive it. I wasn’t using god in my example, but Instead I used YOU in a theoretically possible example using the few rules we think we have of our own perception of reality, to show that knowing the future doesn’t eliminate free will. And the multiverse is ONE POSSIBLE solution to the paradox...the paradox that exists because of how we experience time. And the multiverse theory doesn’t even mean that there are multiple different universes all next to each other, like the guys like hawking cling too (because his famous information is destroyed in a black hole that scratched heads for years was pretty much mathematically debunked) so he wanted to change his theory to it’s not destroyed but it goes into another universe in the multiverse (hawking is very smart at all, but his claim to fame is more about over coming his disease than it is scientific breakthrough)...anyway like I way saying, multiverse doesn’t necessarily mean there is an infinite number of universes, just that the what is reality is the one that happens. It’s a fun theory to play around with, and I get the whole cold spot question, but that’s someone just saying hey...maybe the cold spot is the touching of another multiverse. And a multiverse, as you think of it, also does not eliminate god, or heaven or hell, all of which would have to exist outside of the multiverse. The whole problem with all this suppositions you are getting into, is that there’s so much freaking out there that we don’t know. Take for instance the fact we now find ourselves yet again scratching our heads to another paradox we’re facing in the fact that there is too much symmetry among matter and anti-matter than non of this should exist. Now one could say maybe that’s god hand or whatever holding it all together (or in this case separated), or maybe we just don’t have enough information yet, or maybe we got the way the universe works wrong again. Think of it like this what we know now is represented by the number six, with how much stuff we don’t know and considering when we do find more knowledge it usually leads to more question... when we make these grand and fairly specific suppositions that’s like dividing by 0 (that would represent what we don’t know).

And don’t assume things about me, if anything I’m agnostic. My whole thing is you can’t prove or disprove god, and it would be assumed that if there was a god that gave us the ability to believe or not believe, that the god would want there to be a lack of proof, while proof wouldn’t eliminate free will...there wouldn’t be a sane reason to not believe. If you changed your OP to if God was proven, then I don’t think it’d be the Christian god because of XYZ, that’d be a better question.

I think you, and I are, basically, arguing the same position. However, as I point out to most agnostics, it is not the responsibility for the person presenting a null hypothesis to prove that null hypothesis. It stands as reasonable until such time as anyone positing a positive hypothesis proves their hypothesis.

Put simply, "God does not exist" is not a conclusion to which I have arrived. It is merely a premise that I posit awaiting objective evidence to falsify it. The point of my OP was that, if, against all odds, Christians proved, objectively, that their version of God was the correct version of God, while I would be rationally required to acknowledge that existence, I still could not, in good conscience, worship that deity.

 

[Czernobog]

First of all, you are arguing that the "inerrant word of God" isn't. If that is your position, fine. However, this immediately relegates the Bible to just another book written by the hand of man, no different than The Q'uran, the Bhagavad Gita, the Poetic Etta, or Aesop's Fables. I mean, I'm okay with that, as there is more than enough evidence to indicate this. However, one of the foundational principles of Christianity is the inerrancy of the Bible. It is an accurate record; not it was written to the best of the ability of the men who wrote it at the time, but that it was accurate, and and will remain reliable, regardless of passage of time.

Second you are arguing God's perfect foreknowledge. Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will:

1. God exists on Monday. (Since God is eternal, He exists at all times).
2. God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday. (Since God is omniscient, He therefore knows the future).
3. If God believes X, then X must be true (i.e., God is never wrong).
4. Therefore, it is true on Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday.
5. The only way that Jones FREELY mows his lawn on Saturday is if he has the ability to NOT mow his lawn on Saturday (this is what it means to be free).
6. The only way that Jones could not mow his lawn on Saturday is if he brings it about that one of premises (1)–(3) is false.
   1. That is, Jones must have the power to: (a) Make God not exist on Monday, (b) Make God not have that belief on Monday , or (c) Make God have a false belief on Monday.
7. But, Jones does not have the power to make any of premises (1)–(3) false.
   1. (a) Jones does not have the power to make it such that God didn’t exist on Monday. (b) Nor does he have the power to make it such that God didn’t hold the belief on Monday that he did in fact hold. (c) Nor does he have the power to make it such that an omniscient being held a false belief.
8. Therefore, Jones does NOT freely mow his lawn on Saturday.

See the problem? It is not possible to insist on both Free Will, and perfect omniscient foreknowledge of every individual's actions. So you have to choose. Is God omniscient, therefore justifying any act he takes as necessary due to factors of which we cannot be aware, or does Man have Free Will, and God cannot claim such perfect foreknowledge?

One simple statement negates your whole thought process:

"Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will"

Your assumption that since God knows the future, it negates free will is logically false. Just because God knows the future, does not negate the free will of Man. To keep it simple --- Man has a decision to make (either A or B) -- God knows the result of either of these actions (He knows what will happen if Man picks A, and he knows what will happen if Man picks B). He also knows which choice Man will take. So, he knows the decision and the result (cost) of the decision. But, because he in His infinite wisdom, has given Man free will, He allows Man to make his mistakes.

You are ignoring the reality. If God already knows the decision the man is going to make, that makes the decision a foregone conclusion. Therefore the man didn't have the opportunity to make a choice. The choice was already decided before the man was ever given the illusion of a choice. The only way the man actually had a choice, was if God didn't already know what choice would be made.

The process is in the example I provided. Did Jones have the choice to not mow the lawn on Saturday?

It only makes the decision a foregone conclusion to God -- to the Man, it is still free will. God doesn't influence the choice, He only knows what choice will be made. Man can pick either A or B.

So what?!?! GOD, IF HE EXISTS, IS THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF REALITY. So, if it is a foregone conclusion to God, then it is a foregone conclusion, and our sense of free will is nothing more than an illusion. You are, literally, saying that we have free will only from our limited perspective. That is the very definition of the Illusion of Free Will!!!!

The definition of the illusion of free will, sure, but you just kind of defined the illusion of free will, and then assumed it. Just because someone or something knows the future, that in no way shape or form eliminates free will, the illusion of free will is just an easier way to simplify it for us, in our minds. Time itself could be the real illusion, either way, we are limited in how we travel through time.

I ask again, in the example I provided, does Jones have the ability to choose to not Mow the lawn on Saturday? And, if so, which of the first three premises does he invalidate to do so, without negating the Ever-present, omniscient God?

 

[badger2]

Bergson's Time and Free Will, yes but also his concept of a fundamental triplicity of flux.

'How can I appear to myself without being divided by the structure of reflexivity? And how can the retentional consciousness -- which by definition involves a differential relation between phases of the flow -- not be temporal? The only answer from Husserl and his followers is that there (must [italics]) be a more fundamental self-awareness than the reflexive one; otherwise, we are faced with an infinite regress where the intending subject in its turn must be intended and thus cannot be given to itself in an unmediated unity.

The assumption that the regress is an unthinkable condition is a clear example of a modern of the metaphysics of presence. Its underlying premise is that there must be an instance that is (in itself [italics]). As long as this premise is operative, one cannot think the implications of time. What we call an infinite regress is nothing but the movement of temporalization, which undercuts the very idea of an origin or an end, since every moment is divided in its becoming and refers to other moments that in turn are divided, and so on.
....
My aim is to show that the necessary retention -- far from being reconcilable with the unity of a living presence -- is a representation that divides the subject a priori.'
(Haegglund, M, Radical Atheism: Derrida and the Time of Life, p, 67-8 Derrida and Husserl)

 

[sakinago]

One simple statement negates your whole thought process:

"Except perfect foreknowledge negates Free Will"

Your assumption that since God knows the future, it negates free will is logically false. Just because God knows the future, does not negate the free will of Man. To keep it simple --- Man has a decision to make (either A or B) -- God knows the result of either of these actions (He knows what will happen if Man picks A, and he knows what will happen if Man picks B). He also knows which choice Man will take. So, he knows the decision and the result (cost) of the decision. But, because he in His infinite wisdom, has given Man free will, He allows Man to make his mistakes.

You are ignoring the reality. If God already knows the decision the man is going to make, that makes the decision a foregone conclusion. Therefore the man didn't have the opportunity to make a choice. The choice was already decided before the man was ever given the illusion of a choice. The only way the man actually had a choice, was if God didn't already know what choice would be made.

The process is in the example I provided. Did Jones have the choice to not mow the lawn on Saturday?

It only makes the decision a foregone conclusion to God -- to the Man, it is still free will. God doesn't influence the choice, He only knows what choice will be made. Man can pick either A or B.

So what?!?! GOD, IF HE EXISTS, IS THE ULTIMATE EXPRESSION OF REALITY. So, if it is a foregone conclusion to God, then it is a foregone conclusion, and our sense of free will is nothing more than an illusion. You are, literally, saying that we have free will only from our limited perspective. That is the very definition of the Illusion of Free Will!!!!

The definition of the illusion of free will, sure, but you just kind of defined the illusion of free will, and then assumed it. Just because someone or something knows the future, that in no way shape or form eliminates free will, the illusion of free will is just an easier way to simplify it for us, in our minds. Time itself could be the real illusion, either way, we are limited in how we travel through time.

I ask again, in the example I provided, does Jones have the ability to choose to not Mow the lawn on Saturday? And, if so, which of the first three premises does he invalidate to do so, without negating the Ever-present, omniscient God?

He does, that doesn’t negate the advantage of not having perceiving time in a singular direction. And as in my example you don’t have to have the ability to be outside of spacetime to know the future (however extremely unlikely that might be). You’re inserting a division of 0.