Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.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.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?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.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!!!!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.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?
He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.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.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?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.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!!!!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.
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.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.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?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.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!!!!
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
States isnt much of a better word, but If god states x will happen then x will happen with plenty of room for free will, because that’s what jones decided to do, and god already knew There is nothing stopping the statement of x to be anything but an observation of what will happen. Just like in my scenario you were to state after your trip “hey the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor again.” That didn’t take away free will. If people actually believed you in that hypo, it might change the outcome, but again this is all under a singular direction of time, which god wouldn’t be limited to. So if god came back instead of you and said “hey the Japanese are going to bomb Pearl Harbor again,” then god has the advantage of not having to do another year long trip like you would to see what would happen, if god wanted to actively prevent the bomb of Pearl Harbor, and god would know that him saying it would work, because he sees all the possible outcomes in this silly scenario. God would change the outcome sure, still nothing inhibiting free will. If you want to argue it’s only an illusion then...you’d have to believe in god anyway, and that he has ACTIVELY set up a series of dominoes...to which it wouldn’t matter since you cannot perceive the lack of free will, which is why the illusion of free will argument is dumb, because god would have done one helluva good job convincing you, you do have free will for some useless motivation we wouldn’t know. Which whatever silly motivation for instituting the set of dominoes would probably be uneccasary for a god, more so than actually giving us free will while still knowing what would happen. I digress still, there is nothing stopping free will.Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.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.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?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.
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God states Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God states X, t, hen X must be true.
There, now belief is not a issue. I ask again, which of those does Jones negate, in order for him to not mow the lawn on Saturday. You are just trying to avoid the fact that those three statements can not be accurate, and Jones still have the free will to not mow the lawn on Saturday.
God doesn't dictate that Mr. Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday at a particular time of a particular year. GOD KNOWS that Mr..Jones will mow his lawn at that time on that date. That's an entirely different toboggan.Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.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.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?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.
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God states Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God states X, then X must be true.
There, now belief is not a issue. I ask again, which of those does Jones negate, in order for him to not mow the lawn on Saturday. You are just trying to avoid the fact that those three statements can not be accurate, and Jones still have the free will to not mow the lawn on Saturday.
God doesn't dictate that Mr. Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday at a particular time of a particular year. GOD KNOWS that Mr..Jones will mow his lawn at that time on that date. That's an entirely different toboggan.Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.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.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?
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God states Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God states X, then X must be true.
There, now belief is not a issue. I ask again, which of those does Jones negate, in order for him to not mow the lawn on Saturday. You are just trying to avoid the fact that those three statements can not be accurate, and Jones still have the free will to not mow the lawn on Saturday.
Oh god here we go again, no that’s inserting a division of zero. Knowledge of the future doesn’t not mean that knowledge wasnt passive observation over active manipulation (if I’m reduced to simplifying). Y’all keep inserting that because knowledge of x, there is active manipulation to x. That’s noting but a supposition, and why you keep running to it is because helps to simplify the complex problem of us only perceiving time in a single direction, vs someone or something that doesn’t have too.God doesn't dictate that Mr. Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday at a particular time of a particular year. GOD KNOWS that Mr..Jones will mow his lawn at that time on that date. That's an entirely different toboggan.Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.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.
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God states Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God states X, then X must be true.
There, now belief is not a issue. I ask again, which of those does Jones negate, in order for him to not mow the lawn on Saturday. You are just trying to avoid the fact that those three statements can not be accurate, and Jones still have the free will to not mow the lawn on Saturday.
Then Mr. Jones cannot possibly make a different choice. So no, it's not different.
Now you're talking about a changeable God. God said "A", you chose to do "B", so God goes back, and changes to God said "B". That doesn't present an ever-present, unchangeable ("God is the same today, yesterday, and forever") God. God just goes back, and changes his proclamations based on choices you made. So it isn't that God knew from the beginning of time, every choice you were going to make; rather God just waited for you to make your choice, went back to the beginning, and wrote down the answers to the test, after the test was already over, and then pretended that he knew all along what you were going to do.States isnt much of a better word, but If god states x will happen then x will happen with plenty of room for free will, because that’s what jones decided to do, and god already knew There is nothing stopping the statement of x to be anything but an observation of what will happen. Just like in my scenario you were to state after your trip “hey the Japanese bomb Pearl Harbor again.” That didn’t take away free will. If people actually believed you in that hypo, it might change the outcome, but again this is all under a singular direction of time, which god wouldn’t be limited to. So if god came back instead of you and said “hey the Japanese are going to bomb Pearl Harbor again,” then god has the advantage of not having to do another year long trip like you would to see what would happen, if god wanted to actively prevent the bomb of Pearl Harbor, and god would know that him saying it would work, because he sees all the possible outcomes in this silly scenario. God would change the outcome sure, still nothing inhibiting free will. If you want to argue it’s only an illusion then...you’d have to believe in god anyway, and that he has ACTIVELY set up a series of dominoes...to which it wouldn’t matter since you cannot perceive the lack of free will, which is why the illusion of free will argument is dumb, because god would have done one helluva good job convincing you, you do have free will for some useless motivation we wouldn’t know. Which whatever silly motivation for instituting the set of dominoes would probably be uneccasary for a god, more so than actually giving us free will while still knowing what would happen. I digress still, there is nothing stopping free will.Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.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.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?
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God states Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God states X, t, hen X must be true.
There, now belief is not a issue. I ask again, which of those does Jones negate, in order for him to not mow the lawn on Saturday. You are just trying to avoid the fact that those three statements can not be accurate, and Jones still have the free will to not mow the lawn on Saturday.
Except, unless you are presenting the Cheater, time traveling God that sakinago is presenting, it's not. The only way he could know, with certainty, would be if you're decision was already determined.God doesn't dictate that Mr. Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday at a particular time of a particular year. GOD KNOWS that Mr..Jones will mow his lawn at that time on that date. That's an entirely different toboggan.Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.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.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?
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God states Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God states X, then X must be true.
There, now belief is not a issue. I ask again, which of those does Jones negate, in order for him to not mow the lawn on Saturday. You are just trying to avoid the fact that those three statements can not be accurate, and Jones still have the free will to not mow the lawn on Saturday.
It's entirely different. An individual choosing a path that GOD is is aware of, is certainly not the same as a person having no say in the choice. This is where foreknowledge comes to play. GOD foreknew exactly who would choose to put their faith in GOD and who will not. It is a given fact. GOD created the universe for the sole benefit of those choosing HIM.GOD doesn't send anyone to HELL He simply will not change their mindset for them. And they cannot enter into the presents of GOD unrepentant. Positive and negative matter simply cannot exist together.God doesn't dictate that Mr. Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday at a particular time of a particular year. GOD KNOWS that Mr..Jones will mow his lawn at that time on that date. That's an entirely different toboggan.Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.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.
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God states Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God states X, then X must be true.
There, now belief is not a issue. I ask again, which of those does Jones negate, in order for him to not mow the lawn on Saturday. You are just trying to avoid the fact that those three statements can not be accurate, and Jones still have the free will to not mow the lawn on Saturday.
Then Mr. Jones cannot possibly make a different choice. So no, it's not different.
Already realized or understood is not the very same as determined.Except, unless you are presenting the Cheater, time traveling God that sakinago is presenting, it's not. The only way he could know, with certainty, would be if you're decision was already determined.God doesn't dictate that Mr. Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday at a particular time of a particular year. GOD KNOWS that Mr..Jones will mow his lawn at that time on that date. That's an entirely different toboggan.Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.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.
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God states Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God states X, then X must be true.
There, now belief is not a issue. I ask again, which of those does Jones negate, in order for him to not mow the lawn on Saturday. You are just trying to avoid the fact that those three statements can not be accurate, and Jones still have the free will to not mow the lawn on Saturday.
So, if he already knew who would make that choice, then that choice was already a matter of fact before that person was even born. If the choice was a matter of choice before they were even born, then they had no alternative to make a different choice. You can reword your position in any way you like, the only way that isn't so, is with the time travelling cheater God.It's entirely different. An individual choosing a path that GOD is is aware of, is certainly not the same as a person having no say in the choice. This is where foreknowledge comes to play. GOD foreknew exactly who would choose to put their faith in GOD and who will not. It is a given fact. GOD created the universe for the sole benefit of those choosing HIM.GOD doesn't send anyone to HELL He simply will not change their mindset for them. And they cannot enter into the presents of GOD unrepentant. Positive and negative matter simply cannot exist together.God doesn't dictate that Mr. Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday at a particular time of a particular year. GOD KNOWS that Mr..Jones will mow his lawn at that time on that date. That's an entirely different toboggan.Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God states Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God states X, then X must be true.
There, now belief is not a issue. I ask again, which of those does Jones negate, in order for him to not mow the lawn on Saturday. You are just trying to avoid the fact that those three statements can not be accurate, and Jones still have the free will to not mow the lawn on Saturday.
Then Mr. Jones cannot possibly make a different choice. So no, it's not different.
No it's not. Not when that realisation, or understanding comes prior to the person in question even being given a choice.Already realized or understood is not the very same as determined.Except, unless you are presenting the Cheater, time traveling God that sakinago is presenting, it's not. The only way he could know, with certainty, would be if you're decision was already determined.God doesn't dictate that Mr. Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday at a particular time of a particular year. GOD KNOWS that Mr..Jones will mow his lawn at that time on that date. That's an entirely different toboggan.Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God states Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God states X, then X must be true.
There, now belief is not a issue. I ask again, which of those does Jones negate, in order for him to not mow the lawn on Saturday. You are just trying to avoid the fact that those three statements can not be accurate, and Jones still have the free will to not mow the lawn on Saturday.
Oh god here we go again, no that’s inserting a division of zero. Knowledge of the future doesn’t not mean that knowledge wasnt passive observation over active manipulation (if I’m reduced to simplifying). Y’all keep inserting that because knowledge of x, there is active manipulation to x. That’s noting but a supposition, and why you keep running to it is because helps to simplify the complex problem of us only perceiving time in a single direction, vs someone or something that doesn’t have too.God doesn't dictate that Mr. Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday at a particular time of a particular year. GOD KNOWS that Mr..Jones will mow his lawn at that time on that date. That's an entirely different toboggan.Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God states Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God states X, then X must be true.
There, now belief is not a issue. I ask again, which of those does Jones negate, in order for him to not mow the lawn on Saturday. You are just trying to avoid the fact that those three statements can not be accurate, and Jones still have the free will to not mow the lawn on Saturday.
Then Mr. Jones cannot possibly make a different choice. So no, it's not different.
Already realized or understood is not the very same as determined.Except, unless you are presenting the Cheater, time traveling God that sakinago is presenting, it's not. The only way he could know, with certainty, would be if you're decision was already determined.God doesn't dictate that Mr. Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday at a particular time of a particular year. GOD KNOWS that Mr..Jones will mow his lawn at that time on that date. That's an entirely different toboggan.Now you're just playing semantics.Fine, put your way:He doesn’t have to believe. That’s the insertion of 0. By having to believing, you insert, that insinuates a activeness, when there’s no reason why it couldn’t be passive. He sees it happen, that doesn’t stop jones from choosing. You’re saying that god has to believe it to will it. In my scenario you don’t have to believing anything you saw from the future in order for it to be true, it just happens, and you observed.Irrelevant. In order for him to have that option, you still have to negate one of the following: God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God believes Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God believes X, then X must be true.
Which of those does Jones negate, in order to not mow the lawn on Saturday?
God exists on Monday, and Saturday, simultaneously, God states Monday that Jones will mow his lawn on Saturday, and If God states X, then X must be true.
There, now belief is not a issue. I ask again, which of those does Jones negate, in order for him to not mow the lawn on Saturday. You are just trying to avoid the fact that those three statements can not be accurate, and Jones still have the free will to not mow the lawn on Saturday.
God can be proven by following Jesus instructions and he will reveal himself to you as he has to many yet you wont try this so how woulld youknowif he exists or notSo, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.
Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.
See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.
I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.
I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.
So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?
God can be proven by following Jesus instructions and he will reveal himself to you as he has to many yet you wont try this so how woulld youknowif he exists or notSo, I've a hypothetical for you guys that I am curious about. I maintain that my atheism is a premise, not a conclusion. When I say, "God does not exist", I am presenting a falsifiable premise that is only awaiting objective, verifiable evidence.
Now, with that in mind, let us say that evidence is discovered tomorrow. Now only do we have absolute proof of the existence of God, but we even have absolute evidence that the Christian version of God exists. Could you just "fall in line"? Could you just "become" a Christian.
See, I don't think I could. If we suddenly had the objective evidence necessary to prove that the Christian God exists, that would mean that we, also, have to accept that the Bible is not just a book of stories, and is, in fact, an accurate record of the nature of that God. And that record indicates that he drown the entire race, as far as man understood it to be at that time. This God demanded his favourites to commit genocide...twice. This God chose one person, and intentionally made his life miserable, just for sport (a wager with Lucifer). In short, the Bible portrays a God that is a sociopath.
I don't know that, even with irrefutable evidence that the Christian God exists, that I could become a follower of that God.
I have always said that, given evidence,. I would change my position from atheism to one of theism. However, if I learned that the Christian God was the "God of Creation", I don't think that theism would be a respectful one. I think my position would have to be, "Okay. God exists...and he's a dick," and would accept whatever consequences taking that position would engender.
So, what about you guys? If we suddenly had evidence that Christians had it right all along, could you just become "Good Little Christians"?
