Search results

Your own addition to my analogy does make sense, although is not necessary and doesn't really contribute anything to the argument other than the realization that there exist hypothetical choices which may have been made had God not existed or not been omniscient. Wording the analogy could get a...

WHICH MEANS IT IS PREDETERMINED. I don't get why this is so difficult for you to understand. God KNOWS everything, including every moment in time. Whether he exists outside time or not is completely irrelevant because it is superfluous to this base assumption of God's omniscience with which...

Which is exactly why free will is an illusion, whether God has an external view on time is superfluous. What you are saying is completely empty. If what we "choose" is already known of us, then what choice is involved at all? Exactly zero. There is the illusion that we may choose to go right...

Unless you're suggesting that God's knowledge fluctuates with our choices (which I will assume you are), then you still don't solve the problem of what will happen effectively being the same as what must happen, which I outlined before. Going on my assumption that you mean God's knowledge...

Assuming I understand correctly, you are saying that the path leading to this outcome can change as long as the outcome remains the same? You need to consider the fact that every moment in time can be considered an event with an outcome. Being omniscient, God has knowledge of every event in...

Okay. I've already explained, in terms of epistemology, why God having knowledge of everything, and in this case the past, present, and future of every one of us, means we don't have free will. If you do not understand, read up on some basic philosophy and/or re-read my initial post on the...

I was arguing on the assumption of omnipotence in my previous post; like I said, assuming omniscience is the easy way out. If you don't understand why, refer back to the definition of knowledge and reflect on how this makes the concept of omniscience mutually exclusive with free will. It is...

Okay. It's all bound up in the word "know", implying "knowledge". Epistemologically speaking, knowledge is, at the basic level, justified, true belief. In other words for one to "know" that p, (p is any proposition), one must believe that p, one must be justified in believing that p, which...

Dawkins thinks the two are mutually exclusive mainly because of their opposing approaches to thought. While science admits a gap in it's knowledge, religion is satisfied merely to say that it is God's work or something similar. Hence the term "God of the gaps". As much as this may seem a...

It doesn't, and I apologize if I seem blunt. What you just said is a perfect example of doublethink.

I still fail to see how choice is available at all with God's supposed omniscience and omnipotence.

We must do exactly that. Because he is directly responsible for creating everything in this way, as you admitted. The human race never has and never could do far worse than condemn someone, anyone, to hell. A place in which every moment is extreme pain, which literally never ends? Ever? It...

There are two problems I have with the concept of God which I have never heard a satisfactory explanation for. If anyone would be willing to clear them up I would greatly appreciate it. 1) God is considered omniscient, omnipotent and benevolent. Omniscience implies that in his creation of...