The debate "I can prove that the God in the bible didn't know everything" was started by
November 3, 2015, 2:16 pm.
102 people are on the agree side of this discussion, while 176 people are on the disagree side.
That might be enough to see the common perception.
It looks like most people are against to this statement.
thecries posted 11 arguments, pajrc1234 posted 48 arguments, Alex posted 10 arguments, andy91 posted 3 arguments, kgb posted 1 argument, Monster posted 1 argument to the agreers part.
Alex posted 86 arguments, thecries posted 2 arguments, Ramna_Ayesha posted 1 argument, owenpaul posted 1 argument, pajrc1234 posted 1 argument, AngryBlogger posted 1 argument to the disagreers part.
pajrc1234, erikD9921, sophistry, Nury, WaspToxin, Yuki_Amayane, action007man, racsin_mufc, DuPouvoir, MrDebate, SweetAngel, toffeebrush, ekakus, loupsolitaire, wmgreen00, lawyer_to_be, andy91, dont_steal_this_username, Mousie, godisjustsomethingwemade, Rokai, kgb, Picassota, kallistigold23, famouslorie, omgflyingbannas, AlertedVision, Gandalf, linares34, thatguy, iiks, esoo717, FluffiestDrop45, SocialCrusader, numbskull, Monster, rob5998, whymlxxx, SueAnnMohr and 63 visitors agree.
mafiajo, roshni, supersheep2140, Ishita, Alex, mace10514, andrewkorman, owenpaul, vercetti406, mtemple74, MarlemR, adreonnasky, Tristanzee, DannyknowsItAll, calebtanner, Dina, TonganCaillou, Sally, Ryan, Sageofthe6Paths, Gabri_XO, jellybeanie, iSmuggleJews, AlexRose1517, Glyan14, Sli, smith1323, Kaunistin, waynemc15, curlyyxx, Legendary_kcv, JesusIsGod, RAMD97, Paulno155, britt9790, AngryBlogger, Jared_Lee, sabrina, Regalgeek, nylia32, AttackedByToast, david365, meme, MasayaIchimaru, jjrocks1738, swp16, jt5542002, Dctheentrepreneur, katiefgrace, Rebelis12, M, AlenaMaisel, Neopatriarch and 123 visitors disagree.
a skilled debater can poke holes in most anything. what is the hole you poked on the bible just now, and how does it relate to the debate?
Its really sad just how easy it is to poke holes in the bible.
most of the people in the 1% lived with jesus. they saw him perform miracles. they saw many great works including his resurrected body. they did not have blind faith because they saw these things. seeing a miracle does not, however mean one has no blind faith. in the mass we see wine and bread turned to body and blood, yet most of us have blind faith.
except that all religions have as much proof as Christianity. any one of them has just as much chance of being the "one true faith".
and blind faith is what causes alot of terrible things. cults are based on blind faith. if the faith required proof then cult leaders wouldn't be able to recruit. Jesus Christ was the most successful cult leader in history.
I said I do question my religion. having questions is good. it helps one to gain more knowledge and learn. and if the religion is wrong the questions can guide one to see the truth. in my case my religion is right, so truthfully answered questions you may have can't make me leave the church.
and also blind faith isn't too bad. many smart people have blind faith and it works for them. I look for more proof of God, and so do you, but you want God to come down and wack you on the head before you believe in him. I think 99% of religions people have some sort of blind faith, unless they have seen God perform miracles, or had a vision. Jesus says "blessed are those who believe without seeing (blind faith)."
because any time we make an argument that would make a logical person question religion you ignore it. you don't want to question your religion, so you won't no matter what anyone says, no matter proof is given. you have blind faith, and that is not a good thing.
first calm down. second before jesus the true religion of the time was Jewish. then jesus came and at pentacost the catholic church was created and that is currently the true religion. because there can be only one true faith, and that faith is Catholicism, all other faiths are wrong in some way.
I will answer, to the best of my ability questions you may have about religion. it may cause me to think deeper and ask more questions about my faith, but I don't doubt God's existence. I've yet to hear an argument that will make me doubt God.
Oh and guys, don't waste your breath on these nuts. They will NOT answer any question that may put the slightest bit of doubt in their minds about their religion. Its better not too look than to face the fact that all these years they could actually be WASTING THERE DAMN TIME BELIEVING IN THIS BULLSHIT!
so what about the hundreds or even thousands of religions that all came before Christianity? All of those were WRONG and yours is RIGHT?
the quality of being infallible; the state of never being wrong.
If you can prove that the Church is infallible, then you must prove that everything they said was right. Because they have changed their minds on what they believe that conflict with what they previously believed, one of them is wrong and therefore they aren't infallible.
what core belief did the church change? your last paragraph unfortunately is true sometimes. the church, mostly a few centries ago was very political, and acted for themselves and the king and such. people like you see bad popes, bishops, priests, and catholics, and it decreases your chance to find God because you don't think God should be with those bad people.
I understand this. the biggest two problems you have is 1. infallibility of the church and 2. infallibility of Scripture.
infallibility is complicated, however your intelligent so you should understand there are rules, and these rules have not been changed or brocken. I think infallibility is a term overused since the pope has only used infallibility twice.
and for the part about if you believed you would read the bible and make your own conclusions. there can only be one right religion. every interpretation of the bible is different, so if we all interpreted the bible how we thought it ment, only one of us could be right. that's why jesus created the church. that's why he made the church infallible.
Every time we show an example that meets your criteria for when the Pope is infallible, you change the criteria. So, when the Pope makes an official announcement, and is speaking on behalf of the church about witches being heretics and therefore the inquisition should torture confessions out of them and kill them, what part of infallibility are we missing? You are giving up not because we are unable to understand but because you have run out of excuses to hide behind.
The church can and has changed some of its core beliefs and has blatantly disregarded things that used to be sacred. Any claims of infallibility need to be backed up with a record of never being wrong. The fact that the church doesn't know when Jesus was born, when he died, took decades to decide if he was subservient to the Father or equal, among many other things demonstrates that the church is no more infallible than any other group of men. If they are willing to torture innocent people to death to maintain power, that should raise a red flag about how much a loving God would support their actions.
I don't know for sure if God exists. I have never seen any proof that he does, but I have seen some coincidences and things that make me wonder. I do know that if God exists I would rather learn about him through reading religious texts myself and contemplating them than trust what a bunch of old, conservative white men say when they tell me that God says they should be in charge. I do believe that the majority of Catholic priests honestly want to do God's work and believe in him completely, but those who fight and politic for power in the church are least likely to be worthy of it. Again I am not lumping the entire group into one basket, but the church's actions almost always seem to benefit the church first and foremost and the people and God second.
because no matter what we say you just change what the rules of infalliblity are. we have shown lots of examples that should cause you to doubt the infalliblity of the Pope. instead you simply say we don't understand so that you don't have to come to terms with the fact that it is a lie.
some popes and people off the church have done evil to get popular. that is wrong.
infallibility is a complex subject, and after all this debating you've all nor gotten it, so further debating on the matter is pointless.
so either the church is not infallible and they didn't know it was wrong, or the church is more concerned with its own power and wealth than following the teachings of Jesus. which would should make any person who doesn't blindly follow the church seriously doubt the church's decisions, like say about being infallible.
but if the church were infallible it would know torture and murder is wrong. if your explanation is true it means the church is willing to do evil in order to hold onto its power. in my opinion that would make the church evil.
back then the church sided with the people on many things, like Galileo, and the death penalty, torture.
of they went against the people, more people would would have left the church. the church tries to make its beliefs and practices something that will not throw people out. from Peter not eating with gentiles to the pope speaking about global warming.
the church tries to side with the people, but when the people are proven to be wrong a few centries later the church gets in trouble.
except today the church has no power over people. back then the orders of the church were law. they could have banned the use of torture or even the persecution of witches at all.
do you know what happens today when the church tries to put a stop to innocent people dying(abortion)? the church gets yelled at about rights and stuff. so it's a lose-lose.
if we go with the common idea today, we are in trouble later, if we go against people today, we are in trouble now.
if the church were infallible then either God condones the use of torture on innocent people (since witches didn't really exist they were all innocent) or an infallible church would have put a stop to it.
Dave I don't get your argument how would the church's infallibility prevent torture?
also, no one thought the Pope was infallible at the time of the crusades. that idea came later.
Why? Why does the church not use its infallibility if it could prevent torture and murder of innocent people? Why not avoid hate and intolerance? If it can be infallible, why does the church choose to lose followers and credibility by not exercising it?
Next year I'm going to study the crusades, and we can debate about how terrible they really were.
as for other terrible things, one area, or even a pope is not the whole church. the church using its infallibility is very rare.
the crusades were fully supported by the church. as well as many other terrible things
ok, I thought you were talking about the current pope.
but as for past popes, saten has moved many popes to do bad things. but not the church, because hell can't prevail against the church.
Burning people alive, butchering Muslims and other Christians in the crusades, and many other atrocities are not sufficient cause to punish the church in general or the Pope specifically?
I doubt the pope did anything to deserve saten directing him like David did.
God moved saten to cause David to do bad as a punishment.
Equating God moving someone to say something with Satan prompting something seems like a terrible idea. That introduces the possibility that any time a religious leader throughout history has said that God moved them to say or do something it was really Satan. Satan could be directing the Pope and, by your justification of this quote, he would still say that God moved him to do it.
n 2 Samuel 24:1, God incited David to
number Israel because God was angry with David. God wanted to teach David not to trust in His number of fighting men but to trust in Him. So, He let David count the fighting men of Israel. He used Satan to do it which is why in 1 Chronicles 21:1, it says that Satan moved David to count the men. Both are true. God most probably either sent Satan or allowed Satan to incite David.
similar story with job, God let saten have some control.
From the same story, who prompted David to number Israel?
II SAMUEL 24: And again the anger of the LORD was kindled against Israel, and he moved David against them to say, Go, number Israel and Judah.
I CHRONICLES 21: And SATAN stood up against Israel, and provoked David to number Israel.
While I disagree that they were separate conversations with God since both are worded very similarly, I will concede that it is possible that they are separate events.
Now there was a famine in the days of David for three years, year after year; and David inquired of the Lord. And the Lord answered, ?It is because of Saul and his bloodthirsty house, because he killed the Gibeonites.? (2 Samuel 21:1)
Clearly, Israel had already experienced three years of famine before David numbered the people of Israel and Judah?for reasons unrelated to the situation in question. 2 Samuel 24:1?7 record the initiation of the census, but we find in verse 8 that ?when they had gone through all the land, they came to Jerusalem at the end of nine months and twenty days.?
So according to the text, numbering the people was nearly a year-long process, and there is no clear indication that God had suspended the initial three-year famine prior to the events in chapter 24. Now if God had combined three additional years of famine (1 Chronicles 21:12) with the three years of initial famine, and a possible intervening year while the census was conducted, the resulting overall famine would have totaled about seven years (2 Samuel 24:13).
another possible solution is 4 years after threating David with 7 years, God asked him again if he wanted 3 more years of famine or enemies.
I like the last solution, as I said before two different times David may have been asked.
It is not.
two different times God threatened David with famine?
II SAMUEL 24:13
So God came to David, and told him, and said unto him, shall SEVEN YEARS OF FAMINE come unto thee in thy land
I CHRONICLES 21:11:
SO God came to David, and said unto him, Thus saith the LORD, Choose thee. Either THREE YEARS OF FAMINE or three months to be destroyed before thy foes
How long was the famine God was threatening David with?
So you are confident that there exists am explanation for why both are correct, but you admit that you don't actually understand what it is? That is not a particularly convincing argument, but I'll move on regardless.
one of them has to be wrong by definition. there is only one paternal grandfather. one of those passages is wrong. which calls into question the entire Bible.
slavery is in the bible, is it correct? no. but what is correct was slavery was the law.
was Josephs father jacob? Matthew thought is was, that's the truth. Luke thought is was heli. it's more likely heli, but there are some complicated ways to explain they are both right, but I don't really understand those too much.
Good job Dave, that was the hardest to explain bible contridictions I've ever heard. but still not really a contridiction.
I didn't ask about false prophets, I asked about where it says scripture is the only way.
You ask where the Bible warns about false doctrine but a quick Google search provides many examples.
1 Timothy 4:1-5
Now the Spirit expressly says that in later times some will depart from the faith by devoting themselves to deceitful spirits and teachings of demons, through the insincerity of liars whose consciences are seared, who forbid marriage and require abstinence from foods that God created to be received with thanksgiving by those who believe and know the truth. For everything created by God is good, and nothing is to be rejected if it is received with thanksgiving, for it is made holy by the word of God and prayer.
2 Timothy 4:3
For the time is coming when people will not endure sound teaching, but having itching ears they will accumulate for themselves teachers to suit their own passions,
2 Peter 2:1-3
But false prophets also arose among the people, just as there will be false teachers among you, who will secretly bring in destructive heresies, even denying the Master who bought them, bringing upon themselves swift destruction. And many will follow their sensuality, and because of them the way of truth will be blasphemed. And in their greed they will exploit you with false words. Their condemnation from long ago is not idle, and their destruction is not asleep.
Just to quote a few.
The Second Vatican Council said
"Since everything asserted by the inspired authors or sacred writers must be held to be asserted by the Holy Spirit, it follows that the books of Scripture must be acknowledged as teaching solidly, faithfully and without error that truth which God wanted to put into sacred writings for the sake of salvation. "
This, being an official statement from an infallible council, means that there can be no errors in the Bible. Either this infallible council is wrong about the presence of errors in the Bible, or you need to do a better job of explaining Joseph's two fathers.
so scripture is not always true?
where in scripture does it say that?
of Scripture was the only way then why.
1. did jesus command his apostles to teach, not write
2. most people could not read, if Jesus wanted scripture only he would surly have commanded people to read and write.
3. the printing press was not invented until a thousand years after jesus, and before the printing press books were rare, why, if scripture wad the only way, did divine providence not impliment a printing press earlier?
those 3 arguments are mainly used against prodestants who claim scripture is the only way, so I'll see how they work on you. I know that you don't believe in scripture, but from my arguments you should know that jesus never intended scripture only.
That would demonstrate that God did not know that his word would be corrupted, since the Bible says the scripture is the only true way to know God's will since there will be false teachings even from the church.
You cannot prove god didn't know everything because it was never proven that any variation of the bible is actually true 100%. Nothing more needs to be said than this.
I do get it. You are saying that God doesn't have to make sense. The flaw in that logic is that it is a cop out. You are claiming that you don't have to have an argument since God doesn't need to make sense. That is not a valid method of debate since you are saying that you don't need to debate.
your trying to apply human logic to God. in some instances it's possoble, but not always. to try to apply human logic to God, God would need to be smaller then you.
I'll ask the priest that gave the homily about the subject. buy I think your either not getting what I'm saying or getting it denying it and going against it, back to your original question.
Unfortunately anything said in a homily, even by the Pope, has no inherent claim of being true. Whether a priest told you that God didn't have to obey logic or not is irrelevant, this is not a question of understanding, it is one of capability. There are two mutually exclusive possibilities. Either God can do it, or he can't. You can hide from logic as long as you want but eventually you will need to address the fact that no matter how you twist reason God can't both be capable of something and simultaneously not, so at some point, even if it is only to yourself, you should consider what you actually believe.
I was using an argument that I heard yesterday in a homily at mass. apparently you don't see it. you are saying that God having his own rules and bring bigger then our logic is impossible.
it is a simple yes or no question. it not trying to comprehend the infinite complexities of God. your whole argument is that you won't make an argument. you cannot defend your point so you say that God doesn't have to make any sense. well at least you got that part right. your argument makes no sense and you seem to legitimately believe your own nonsense.
your trying to know God in this way: you think that God has to follow the yes or no question. you think that rule applies to him, but no rule that applies to our logic applies to God's logic. two different things, God logic, and ours.
I am not asking for everything, just one thing. Can God make a rock so heavy he cannot lift it. The human brain is capable of containing a yes or no question. Your problem is that no matter which way it is answered it demonstrates that God is not omnipotent so rather than address the point you hide from it. Do you believe God could create something he could not move? It is a simple yes or no question.
my argument is that by trying to fully know and understand God, and all his mysteries, you must be able to fit God inside your head. Since God is bigger then a human head, we can't do so. So trying to understand God is impossoble, so don't try to know and understand everything he is.
what you are trying to do is hide from an argument. you can't defend yourself so you say God can do anything, I don't have to prove anything. that isn't a debate, its a cop out. if you can't come up with an actual argument then don't make one.
what you are trying to do here is know God, and what he us like. your trying to fit God into your head. that's impossible. you can't fully know God, and how he operates, and how everything works. trying to do that is trying to put all of God inside your head. for God to fit inside your head He would need to be smaller then you, He isn't. we humans can't comprehend the mysteries of God, or say we truly know God until we are face to face with him in heaven.
It is a theoretical question. Can God create something even he cannot destroy? If not, he is it all powerful because there is something he cannot do. If so he is not all powerful because there is something he cannot destroy.
It is similar in concept to the question of whether God can create a stone so heavy even he cannot lift it. Both are examples of the inherent illogic of an omnipotent being.
if he doesn't exist due dye his own power, what power does he exist from?
God can destroy, he destroys a lot in the bible.
God doesn't exist due to his own powers he can create anything so he can create something he can't destroy but he is all powerful thusly he can't exist hence he knows nothing
Peter was in authority over the church based on scipture
You are Peter, and on this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell will not prevail against it" (Matt. 16:18).
Whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven" (Matt. 16:19). Here Peter was singled out for the authority that provides for the forgiveness of sins and the making of disciplinary rules.
I will give you the keys of the kingdom of heaven" (Matt. 16:19). In ancient times, keys were the hallmark of authority.
the council of Jerusalem, there was a disagreement, then peter spoke his opinion, and that was the answer.
also on Easter Sunday when the apostles were running to the tomb, John got there first, but waited until peter got there to go in.
Yes, God doesn't know everything in the bible but his disciples do know what God said what God did and what God sees..
Peter was not Pope. There is no record he was ever in Rome, let alone the bishop of Rome. Also there is nowhere in the scripture that says that anyone should have authority over the church. Peter never did. The idea for a pope came later as the Bishops of rome became more important and powerful. The very idea of a pope was made up after Peter's death to give the bishops of Rome Power over the Church. Peter never claimed he had authority over the church. He certainly never claimed he was infalible.
Several flaws in your argument. First, do you have any historical record of Peter being the first Pope beyond the church claiming his authority? Second, since historybuff and I have repeatedly addressed your vague quote from the Bible, what evidence do you have that God actually claims the Pope is infallible beyond the church saying "Trust me, God said so"?
Jesus is God. God is not wrong, do jesus could not be wrong, unless he isn't God in which everything is a lie
Peter was the 1st pope.
Jesus never said that. he said hell wont defeat the church. even if he had meant infalliblity he was only talking about Peter, not the Pope, who didn't exist yet.
Well how do you know Jesus was correct in saying the Church is infallible?
So the Pope is able to perform miracles, but God would rather children be tortured to death than let him miraculously help them? God doesn't want his church to be recognized as true so he withholds the evidence that he used to offer freely? Saying that he can and chooses not to is only a valid argument if you have proof that he can.
Could you reference some miracles instead of lazily claiming they exist without justifying the claim?
the pope may be able to do a miracle if God wants him to. if God wants him to, God will give him enough grace to do so. I fell like I've said this about 1 million times "blessed are those who believe and have not seen" God wants us to believe in him without swing miracles and stuff.
also there are miracles that happen today, look them up.
everything jesus said and did was not in the bible at the end of John's Gospel he says there were many other works not recorded in this book. so asking for everything jesus said is unresonable. he didn't mention that there was no grace either so what happens when the bible leaves us questions? we look to the infallible church (we know the church is infallible because Jesus said so). the church tells us there is grace, so we know 100% we have grace.
Also, if you also need grace, then Jesus was still either mistaken or lying. He didn't mention that you needed grace.
You have circled the topic but never actually addressed why the Pope is incapable of miracles. Are you saying he lacks grace? Why did Mother Teresa not heal the sick while she was alive if a lock of her hair is now able to cure cancer?
Saying that not everyone is able to perform miracles makes sense, but no one has performed any public miracles like those documented in the Bible in modern history. Why has the church stopped doing so when by healing the sick they could save many more souls? Miracles used to be used to demonstrate God's power to nonbelievers and to convert those who had never heard His word, but that stopped. The question is what changed?
People with that much grace are rare, and extremely hard to find. a lot of the saints did not have a super high level of grace.
as for you saying it's unfair to give people low levels of grace I'll explain it how St. therese of lisieux put it
She wrote that it's like a garden. high grace is a rose and low grace is a daisy. both are beautiful and God the gardener looks down on both the rose and daisy and loves them equally. a garden with only roses would be boring, you need differ types of flowers, especially ones like a daisy or other simple groundcover.
both people with little grace and a lot of grace can love, and serve God. they both can go to heaven and receive eternal happiness.
Then get someone with a lot of grace. Also, why does God not give everyone the same amount of grace? Isn't that unfair?
like I said ealier about grace. to do miracles we need a high level of grace. God does not grant the same amount of grace to everyone. only those with high grace can do miracles. the saints and the apostles had a high level of grace, so they can do miracles.
It doesn't matter what I believe faith is, it matters what Jesus believed faith was when he said anyone with faith could literally move mountains if they asked in his name. Do you have faith in Jesus? If so, why are you not doing like the disciples and spreading his message by healing the sick? Why isn't the Pope performing miracles to save those afflicted by earthquakes, diseases and hurricanes? Jesus said anyone could in his name, and the disciples did so, so does the Pope lack the faith, or is it not possible?
Well tell me the denotation (in this specific context), and that should give a solid answer. Plus, Jesus said you could move a mountain if you have faith, which you could find a person and have them move a mountain. If they can't move the mountain, he was either mistaken, tweaking the truth, or flat out lying. Which was it?
What is faith in your opinion?
So now we have circled back to question of whether Jesus was mistaken or lying. He said that anyone could do it if they had faith. ?
you can do it if it is right to do and you have enough faith. and grace. grace is given by God, and different people have different amounts of grace. if one has enough faith and grace by God to move a mountain they can if they want. very very few people have ever had that amount of grace given to them.
Then why did Jesus say it was alright to do it? Why did Jesus offer to help us move mountains if it would be wrong to do so?
again. nothing in that post had anything approaching a logical point. everything is as God wants it but he doesn't control it. even though the existence of God is unsubstantiated in the first place.
if it is against God's will, it cannot be done. know that after death is heaven, God wants people in heaven so when one is going though natraul death, He rarely interferes. God most of the time let's nature and logic run like he created it to, this way is better and the way God wants.
That is true, but irrelevant. I am not suggesting people pray for wealth, I am suggesting people do exactly what Jesus told them to do and that he would answer their prayers. Why is it unreasonable to ask God to do what he explicitly says that he would do? Jesus said if you ask God to move a mountain in his name, it would be done. Why not take him at his word and start healing the sick?
Well, why don't you pray like that for good in the world?
"God give me a million dollors" -not a prayer
jesus tells his diciples how to pray he says "our father who art in heaven, thy will be done" Thy will, the Father's will, God's will not our will.
So God wants to torture children to death with incurable diseases? Why did Jesus and his disciples heal the sick then? If religious leaders used to regularly perform miracles even after Jesus' death and resurrection, why can none of them do so now? Why does Jesus explicitly say that prayers will be answered if we ask in his name but none are?
The pope didn't agree with evolution before because there was no proof.
-paraphrased from you
God also has no proof.
Our intentions and desires are not comparable to God. Why would Jesus allow himself to be crucified, he could have easily lef lt the cross. God has power yet our desires are minute and do not understand the role of God
You both seem to have misunderstood why I suggested the Pope move mountains and heal the sick. I wasn't suggesting it as a parlour trick, or to test God. I suggested it because it could save people's lives, which I would think the Pope would want to do. Many people died making the railroads, and people constantly die of incurable cancer, HIV and other conditions. If prayer by those with faith was sufficient to cure these people, your religion is full of monsters who are letting children suffer and die for nothing. If it is not, Jesus was either mistaken or lying.
Tradition of the church is the teachings of the church.
that sentence was complete nonsense alex. tradition is modern. tradition means old. modern means new. the traditions the church bases its thinking on comes from the middle ages when people didn't know much. so basing your beliefs on tradition is absolutely not modern.
no, so both are possible and true, religion AND science not OR.
does the bible disprove science?
No just that one may exist with the other
so u r saying that pope belives in science more thn bible
as a catholic I don't use the bible alone as prodestants do. I follow Tradition, the teachings of the church, Tradition is updated and modern.
the pope didn't agree a long time ago because there was no proof. most people a long time ago thought the earth was the center of the universe, and then a guy comes up says something else. very few people believe him and the pope goes along with most of the scientists at that time.
the church is squeezing into the gaps of science. finding a place that science hasn't proven yet. as science closes those gaps so do they close the future of religion. and that is a very good. eliminating the need to tie your decisions to a book written almost 2000 years ago is a good thing.
pope may agree today but why didnt agree at the times of galileo and newton.... the reason is there is pure evidence of that now ..it has nothing to do with bible either it believes that or not...
Precisely! How was God to explain an idea like evolution to people thousands of years ago?
Science in no way goes against the Catholic faith. The Catholic church does not disagree with evolution or the big bang, and many such as the pope agree with those.
saying God is real does not make him real. gods have been made up in every culture. usually they get discarded for a new one eventually. luckily education and science are slowing making religion an outdated concept. the third largest "religious" group in the world are those who don't follow a religion. give it another century or two and religion in the developed world will have died out.
He is what he is. because he is. we don't tell God what to be like or what to do. he tells us what is good and what we should do. many people ignore him and don't listen. saying "God is fake" does not make him fake.
since he was made up by man he very much is. he is a story in a book. he is what we say he is.
God is not at the mercy of man
except clearly he didn't answer their prayers. the Christian world has splintered into dozens of denominations. islam is the fastest growing religion. there are 1.1 billion non religious people. that's right, the third biggest category for religions is no religion. if God answered the Pope's prayers they wouldn't have lost a large portion of the world.
And you misunderstand the Pope and holy persons. They arent magic men. They have faith in God and therefore God will answer their prayers because He will not be outdone in compassion. It doesnt guarantee that everything is answered
Is faith literally a mustard sees? Do people run around moving mountains? No. Its telling the power of faith in God.
alex my point is the bible could be right at that point of time but may not be right now
"you shall not put the Lord your God to the test" this means even though God can do something does not mean he will do it, or you should make him do it.
So the Pope should be able to heal the sick, right? He is the most faithful follower, has dedicated his life to Christ, and seems to genuinely care about people. Why is he not healing people that medical science can't?
"I want this mountain out of the way " might not be a good enough reason, but if faith could move mountains at all building the railroads should have killed far fewer people. You would think the local clergy would have been happy to move those mountains out of the way instead of working people to death and dealing with accidents. Why didn't anyone think to ask Jesus to help those people?
Is there anyone you know that has enough faith to move a mountain?
There are certain levels of faith. "I want a mountain moved, jesus move this mountain for me" is not good faith. real faith is different
Jesus explicitly says that faith IS enough to move mountains, so are you saying he was lying, or mistaken?
Andy what is your point with that statement?
the scriptures and the holy books are from different times and are acc to circumstances existed then. time changes and the rules also has to change. still water stinks and flowing water always remain freash
believing in jesus if faith but not enough faith to move mountains.
Jesus was hungry and saw a fig tree. When he got to it he found that there were no figs (which shouldn't have been surprising since they weren't in season). He then cursed the fig tree to never bear fruit again. The tree then withers.
If Jesus is God, he has to know everything or else I have demonstrated that God in the Bible, in the person of Jesus, did not know everything. If he knows everything, why walk over to a fig tree and curse it knowing that figs are not in season?
Jesus then goes on to say that anyone who asks for something in his name will receive it.
"Truly I tell you, if anyone says to this mountain, ?Go, throw yourself into the sea,? and does not doubt in their heart but believes that what they say will happen, it will be done for them."
Try it. Pray that a mountain pick itself up and jump into the ocean. If it doesn't, one of three things is true. Either Jesus was lying, which a good God shouldn't do, you don't have enough faith, which shouldn't be a problem if you believe, or Jesus was mistaken, showing he didn't know everything.
ok, now for God to change it do the flood would not have happened he would have to change our choices. he gave us free will. to change our choices he would have to take away free will. without free will we could not love him willingly as he wants us to.
this is what we've been saying to you the entire time!
and you know it's in the Bible, so citing it exactly is unneeded.
Well, in Genesis, God floods the Earth. God, being the creator of everything, knows that this would happen by the way he changed it. If he got mad, be could (being eternal) go back and change it to his needs. But because he didn't go back and change it to the way he wants it so he's not mad, it's obvious he never knew that the flood was going to happen in the first place.
how is God in the bible not all knowing, give me bible verses please.
No you haven't.
we all (those will agree) have the logic and reasoning, with the information in the Bible, to support the claim. It even says "the God in the Bible" in the debate statement. We have explained multiple times that he didn't know everything, and no one has refuted our logic.
No you can't
hummmm interesting comments from all of you
do you have a proof?do u have any evidence or witness??are you believe in god? actually u have a point there bcuz we don't know how god looks like and what do he do but one thing that I know is he sacrifice himself even though I didn't see....sacrifice are rarely human do(some of human)
also we're not saying he knows nothing, just it is evident that he didn't know one thing.
Just so you know, this is a hypothetical discussion, meaning that it's all according to the beliefs.
if god didn't know everything, maybe you will not born to this world
Causality from the starting conditions of the universe would be the best answer. We make decisions based on our experiences. Our actions inform the actions of those around us, as theirs influence us. The way your parents raise you influence how you in turn raise your kids. Your religious beliefs influence your actions, spreading your religious beliefs, and so on. We can rarely predict exactly what someone will do because each person is a bundle of millions of memories and experiences combined with genetic influences, but we can come pretty close.
Ok, God did not decide everything, but then if we have no free will, them who decided our choices?
If you know what happens in a movie, does that mean you decided what would happen?
As historybuff says, I am not saying God decided everything, I am saying that if he knows everything that will happen, everything that will happen is set.
no. we are saying if the outcome is knowable then it is determined. if the outcome can be seen them it is already been decided. not necessarily that God decided it.
again you say knowing is determining. you are saying "if God knew then he must have determined."
You have also overlooked the fact that according to the church Jesus was God, and therefore knew everything. He was clearly within time. Either he knew everything that would ever happen, disproving free will, or he did not and thus God, at least in the aspect of Jesus, did not know everything.
You are again arguing that you don't need to argue logically because God doesn't have to adhere to logic. This is a self defeating argument because it means that you recognize your arguments are illogical, but you are going to make them anyways.
When you watch a movie, you are outside of the movie's timeline. You can fast forward, rewind, skip scenes and pause it. This is the best approximation I can see you what you are describing God's existence outside of time as. If that is the case, would you argue that those in the movie have free will when you are watching it, or are their actions set?
If you want to settle this argument, you need to do more than simply say that logic doesn't apply to God. God is obviously able to act within time, as Jesus lived and he has spoken to various prophets. That means that during those interactions, while he was operating within time, he still had knowledge of everything that would ever happen. This is why free will is incompatible with an omniscient God. In Moses time frame, our actions were already set in stone since they were already known and influenced by God's words and actions.
yes and yes.
what you are doing is taking the knowledge of God outside of time, and placing it in our time.
you have to seperate outside of time and time.
pushing together time with outside of time does not work and is immpossible logically.
if you put outside of time in time, then it would not be outside of time, or if you put time outside of time, it would not be time.
Based on your beliefs about God,
Do you exist in time?
Did God know, before you were born, every decision you will make in your lifetime?
If both of these are true, that means that before you were born every decision you would ever make was already made. Whether God is outside of time or not, we experience it linearly.
You are essentially trying to argue that you don't need a logical argument since God doesn't have to obey logic. All that shows is that you do not have a logical argument to make.
Must I repeat the argument that has refuted your argument a billion times once again?
I see what you are doing here, you are trying to fit God into our time, which is impossible. Our time is for us. God's out of time being is for him. you can't combine the two.
y'all still trying to get him to understand lol smh
you are simply proving his point. You are really not understand what we are saying. If God knew with certainty exactly what we would do and when at the beginning of time, it's gotta be fixed, because he's freaking God. Therefore we don't have a choice at all, because it was fixed with certainty. Because he is eternal, that specific thing must happen over and over again.
nothing is long or short to God, since long and short describe time. we make our choices now, so what has been "long" since decided?
You either don't understand what we are trying to say or are purposely ignoring it because you are not refuting our arguments. If the decision had already been long since made, which it must be if God has already seen us make it, our "choice" is just an illusion at the time.
first God's plan is different then what people do.
free will is we choose, God, if he determined, then free will would be immpossible
and he would still have to give the child some small details, or if he didn't give those small details, he would've known what the child would do down to the nanosecond, so if he didn't like it, he could change it to make him happy. He knew that his creation was flawed but he did not change it, and then he gets mad because humans didn't do what he wanted, though he could have changed each part so he wouldn't get mad. The fact that he gets mad even though he knew the way he made people would cause them to sin proves that he actually didn't know that we would sin.
Let's say God makes a child. He gives it a sense of humor and timing, so his jokes go at specific times. According to God's plan, each and every joke will be planned out, and since it is in God's Plan, AND he knows with certainty, he doesn't really get to decide when he does jokes. God's Plan will specifically say when he does a joke, and he can't change the plan.
just because he can change the small details before birth, dies not mean he does.
and also by changing the small details before birth, he would control exactly what we do and when, and that's not a choice.
and that's the bottom line, because that's refuting your argument entirely.
no. the point is that if the outcome has already been observed then it is impossible to make a different choice. our fate would be fixed.
yes, he can change it. that's not the point though
And the problem with this statement down there is that you don't know it's not going to work until someone breaks it.
God knows it's not going to work, so he can change the small details while he creates us to make us not fall for Satan, or defy his word, etc.
" if he created us, and he created us,"
Sorry, I meant if he knows everything and he created us.
"It is a thought experiment that when there is something unknown, all outcomes are possible. "
I actually had thought of something like this on my own. It's surprising to see that the same thing is an actual philosophical (or some -ical) thing.
Once you have seen someone make a decision, cam they change what the decided? I don't mean change their mind afterwards, I mean actually change what you saw them decide originally.
What you are saying is that God has already watched us make every decision we ever will, but that we can still decide things. The two are not compatible views. Either the decision has been made and God has already seen it meaning that the choice is an illusion, or we are able to make decisions now since God has not already watched us make them.
If you want an example of what we are trying to get across, look up Schroedinger's cat. It is a thought experiment that when there is something unknown, all outcomes are possible. As soon as it is observed, the outcome is no longer uncertain and the outcome is decided. That is our issue with free will being compatible with God knowing everything. If there is no uncertainty, there is no choice. We may think we are making a choice, but it has already been made.
I have you have seen that I've explained them and reworded your argument but said the same thing, I have to continue to say the right answer I can't say the wrong answer just to say something different. I have explained many times how free will and God knowing are possible and I will do it once again:
Think of it like this; God sees the present, for him the past present and future all one, he only sees us chosing like you see someone now make choice. do you determine it? no. So if seeing the present does not determine, and for God all is the present, then he does not determine.
there I used a different way to argue it. happy now?
"I don't see how I've lost. you have brought up objects claiming to disprove free will, and I have explained them, and proved them to be false."
You keep repeating the same argument.
I said KNOWS to make sure you are getting the information.
It still doesn't allow free will (as we have explained a million times yet you still don't really understand)
You have not explained them.
You have not proven them false.
except that last argument you made, that was a bit different, adding a "test" concept.
It still has been refuted, but different nevertheless.
I don't have a question. That is my argument. You keep repeating the same argument that has failed to refute mine.
I'll give you one question. you ask it, I'll answer it, you tell me how my answer is wrong, working with the answer I gave, not adding a new question.
do you agree, if so ask your question.
and you have NEVER proven then false.
Actually, if he created us, and he created us, then he DID determine it. He knows what happens by the way he creates us, and since he's omnipotent, he creates us to do these specific things at a specific time, knowing what each change did.
Second, the fact that he had to test us to know makes you really agree with the statement. As an all knowing, all powerful God, he wouldn't have to test us to know the results. He knows what would happen IF he tested us, so why would he have to test is in the first place? This proves that he needs to test to find it out, so he obviously doesn't know everything.
Also, you've never explained why he can know but we have free will. You just keep repeating that determining and knowing are not the same, and that they are compatible, but you have not listened once about what we are saying.
I'm pretty sure I have mentioned this 1 or 2 times before. God can change the universe so we can't sin. he can. he doesn't. he allows sin to occor to test us.
notice how you said HE KNOWS not he DETERMINES because yes he only knows, not determines.
I don't see how I've lost. you have brought up objects claiming to disprove free will, and I have explained them, and proved them to be false.
It's because he knows EVERYTHING
He KNOWS that we sin when he creates us.
He KNOWS what we will do and when we will do it.
He KNOWS that he will have to flood everyone
He KNOWS how saying "My God, My God, why have you forsaken me?" is actually saying "Myself, Myself, why have I forsaken me?" (because it's Jesus who says it)
He KNOWS ^ that's ridiculous.
He KNOWS that he could have changed the thing that made us choose to sin.
And how he made us going on this exact pattern is not free will.
He KNOWS that you lost this (THE IRONY!).
because if it can be seen with certainty then it is already decided.
I still don't see how God seeing what we are doing fixes what we chose.
no. you are completely ignoring logic. if God knows what we will do then what we will do is set. we do not have a choice. that is logic.
God Usally is logic, buy does not have to be. in this example God acts logically. he sees what we chose to do. that's logical.
your entire argument is that logic doesn't apply when talking about god. once you take that view debate is impossible because you are closed minded.
what simple real logic do I not accept. your logic is God sees so he must have determined. simple, yes, but false.
lf you refuse to accept the simple logic, there's no point in arguing with you.
They are set and already made by us, us what I think he is actually saying, though he is not saying so.
no. he is saying that you are wrong. if God knows the decisions then the decisions are set. we are not making them. they are already made.
you say my answers are illogical, however I think what you are saying agrees with me more then the other side.
what you are saying dave, does not disprove free will, or God knowing everything
I agree 100% to what your saying. we cannot change our choices no matter how many times we look at it. our choices are always the same. now God is watching us make these choices and noting what choices we are making. I understand it is a difficult concept, but God observing does not mean the choices are set by him. they are set, but by us. we set the choices we make and God sees them.
Your answers are illogical. That is why it keeps bring repeated. If something has already been observed, it can not be changed. If God has already seen is make a decision, that means we can not decide anything other than what he has seen us decide. Thus, while we have the illusion of choice, we really only have the option of choosing that which we have already been observed choosing.
Let's say you have a window that lets you look through time and you use it to look back at Martin Luther King making his historic speech. Previously he thought he could choose to say anything he wanted, but when you are watching him you could already have the transcript of everything he will say. Does he still have the choice to say something different? No, because the decision has been made and recorded in history. It has already happened and cannot be changed.
That is why God observing us makes free will impossible. By saying that all of time exists already, every decision has already been made. If that is true, we are just acting out our parts in history, unable to actually change anything.
how about instead of repeating your argument you scroll down look at the 5 times I've explained how free will and God knowing are possible, and counter argue that? that is how a debate works, not you repeating your argument. I've replied to your false statements and asked you to make a new one, buy you refuse, because you don't have a counter argument for my answers.
I actually might have to tell him again xD LMAO rofl LOL because it's hilarious.
"Keep using sites like godisimaginary.com they don't know what there talking about"
Yet you still use the same argument that has been proven illogical over and over again.
Godisimaginary.com actually uses Bible verses, definitions, experiements, etc.
With both of those facts, and your improper grammar/spelling, you are the one who doesn't know what they're (not there) talking about.
tell him again lol
"I guess those people at godisimaginary.com knew what the imaginary God was thinking."
Well, the information was based off of pretty much everything that you've shown you believe. Also, "The Word of God" is always told by a human, isn't it? So how would you know that God wants you in heaven? I thought you said that the intentions of God are unknown or something.
Also, if God knows that we will do something, then it must be fixed like that, because if it wasn't, he would know that that different outcome would happen. If we make a choice, he knows that will happen, so it's always going to be like that, or he isn't omniscient. He made us in the exact way to do these sins, if he didn't know that we would do the sins, he wouldn't be omniscient.
Does God know the future?
No: He's not omniscient
Yes: Do we have free will?
No: You're correct on that part
Yes: That's impossible. If he knows what will happen and what choices we make (explained SEVERAL TIMES already!), then those choices will be the only choices that we make, making it impossible to have free will. If another choice was there, God would know that. If we go outside of what he thinks will happen (or is happening), he's not omniscient. Now if you say that it's possible for you to say "Yes" to both question, then that makes you either a fool, bigot or slave.
One who cannot reason is a fool.
One who will not reason is a bigot.
One who dare not reason is a slave.
and for your first commet.
I don't get how God seeing makes free will impossible. how does knowing mean fixed?
clearly you have no idea what a plan is. is a plan always followed? hell no! so why does people not following God's plan disprove him having one?
That wasn't me who wrote it, but at least I found it. It's on the proof 33 on the website there.
haha funny. I guess those people at godisimaginary.com knew what the imaginary God was thinking. XD
next God does not hate people, he hates sin, he did not create people to or for sin, but to have the ability to sin. he did this because unlike Obama and sanders God does not want people getting things for free. Earth us a trail, or test to see if we are worthy of heaven. fail go to hell, pass go to heaven. Keep using sites like godisimaginary.com they don't know what there talking about and their arguments are easy to debate.
Here's a technical thing for you, it's what God was most likely thinking right before Christ. It's directly from godisimaginary.com
Those evil humans down on earth. I hate what they are doing. All this sin...
Since I am all-knowing I know exactly what the humans are doing and I understand exactly why they commit each sin. Since I created the humans in my own image and personally programmed human nature into their brains, I am the direct author of all of this sin. The instant I created them I knew exactly what would happen with every single human being right down to the nanosecond level for all eternity. If I didn't like how it was going to turn out, I could have simply changed them when I created them. And since I am perfect, I know exactly what I am doing. But ignore all that. I hate all these people doing exactly what I perfectly designed them to do and knew they would do from the moment I created them. I HATE IT! I tried killing all the humans and animals once in the flood. That certainly did not fix the problem.
This should explain a LOT.
IT'S A STINKING ANALOGY
Anyway, you still don't understand this SIMPLE CONCEPT!
It is FIXED if God knows it
That way, it is NOT our choice going out of it, because God knows that we WILL go out of it if we do.
That is NOT free will! He KNOWS that we will make bad choices! He supposedly made us that way!
And you ARE losing, because you keep repeating that we are saying determining and knowing are the same thing, though we've repeated that they are not, and prove that why knowing the future won't allow free will, but you just go on again about how we are saying determining and knowing are the same thing.
Also, if God isn't determining the future, there is no God's Plan. God's Plan is entirely about how God is determining what is happening.
you're right. he will never understand. he can't see that he doesn't make any sense.
you can't compare life to a book, because life is not written down. but is it were, God would be reading every word at the same time. but life is not a book, it is very hard to find something to compare it to. now the decisions will stay the same, because we only have one choice to do something. so everyone God looks at our segment of time the choice is the same, because we choose it.
he knows what choice he will make, God is unchangeable, so he always knows what choice we will make, not what choice he made us make.
I'm going to try another angle to this argument now, not because I'm losing but because we are going around in circles.
God is all good, and doing bad or making bad would go against his nature. people make bad choices, evil ones, God could not have made them make bad choices because he is all good, so people must have made bad choices without God, so we must have free will.
Alex, I wasn't saying God made the decision, but if he observes it ahead of time it is fixed. Think if life like a book that God has read and is rereading (trying for outside of time as best I can). The characters may face choices and make decisions, but the don't really have free will because both their choice and the outcome are already determined. If God has already observed our whole lives, which he has to if he knows everything, then our choices are no more real than those of characters in a book. No matter how many time the story is reread, the decisions will stay the same, so there really is no choice or free will.
Ok, here, I'll try to help.
We apparently have free will, so we get to choose.
God, knowing everything, knows (NOT determines) what we choose.
Since he knows everything, that must mean that will always happen and that doesn't change.
If this is true, we don't have free will.
If it isn't, you must be agreeing with the statement, because he would know what choice we make.
This is an argument that we have repeated in multiple forms, all of which refutes your argument. You clearly don't want to give up, so you are saying that we are saying determining and knowing are the same. We get that. Either way, there is no free will.
the decision has been observed by God, not made by him. it's just God looking at what we decide, like him jumping into the future
Alex will never get lol
That does not change the fact that as we are making the decision, it is only the illusion of choice since that decision has already been made and observed by God.
long since been decided by us. God seeing has nothing to do with our choice.
But if he has been able to see what we would choose before we were born, free will itself is an illusion because that decision was set before we were born. We had the illusion of choice, but the outcome had long since been decided.
first thank you for using a different argument. the things God sees is set, but by us, not by him, he just sees what we choose.
did you not read my arguments. I explained how free will and God knowing is possible, if you want you can say how those are wrong by giving new arguments. I've already explained at least 5 times how God can know, and we can have free will, so I will not do it again, as I have more important things to do.
Alex, the problem is that for God to already know what decisions we will make those decisions need to be determined in advance. If God already knows every choice I will make for the rest of my life, even if it is because he exists outside of time, it means that right now those decisions have essentially already been made. That would mean that free will is only an illusion since the choice I think I am making now was already set long ago and I am just follow the path.
For God who exists outside of time, everything is both a live show and a rerun. The problem with free will is that there is none in a rerun since everything was set when it was recorded. If you watch a rerun of an improv act, the comedian is no longer deciding what to say. The decided long ago and you are watching that predetermined decision play out. For God, all time is both live and a replay, which is why we say it is not compatible with free will.
I don't think Alex will ever get it lol
Alex the point has been a
explained over and over again to you using different examples. you are willingly ignoring our point. if God created the world knowing exactly what would happen, then he made it happen and free will is a lie. either God created the world and knows everything or we have free will. it cannot be both. ignoring it by saying God is magic and logic should be ignored when discussing him doesn't change anything.
I was the one who explained it pretty well and you guys are the ones who keep repeating the argument, and I don't like repeating arguments.
I'm not going to reexplain it to you, no matter how many times you say your argument my answer will be the same. if you want to bring up a new argument like the one I gave you I will gladly argue it. but stop repeating yourself.
he will never understand lol... let him think we have free will lol
God's plan and what he knows are not the same. yes, he knows the ball will stop because at the same time he is dropping the ball on the hill, he is seeing it stop. this way, God being outside of time, knowing and free will are possible.
instead of repeating an argument after i give you the answer yet again, come up with a new argument.
For example I'm surprised nobody on this app has said "God is not outside of time, and God being outside of time is the only way free will and knowing are possible, so therefore one of those, him knowing or free will is false"
of course to say this you admit that if God is outside of time, he knows and we have free will. and you will have to change your vote to disagree to argue that argument i made.
also, if he knows what's going to happen, he knows if the ball will go or stop, and if Satan will come out. That isn't free will. Now stop saying that we're saying determining and knowing are the same, because we know the difference. It still leads to no free will. If you say we have free will, you must have agreed.
and that we can't change. That's what God's plan is. It's either known or determined by God, if he determines what we do that isn't free will, if he only knows it, then we still don't have free will because if we do something out of what he knows, that is free will, but he wouldn't know.
you saw me before I was born
this means God knows the future.
you scheduled each day of my life
the schedule is God's plan. that is what a schedule is, a plan. do we always follow the schedule? no. we can chose not to follow it and be talked out it by saten.
every day was recorded in your book.
God knows every second that happen in our past, and everything everybody did.
let's say the ball is us humans the hill is life and the bottom is heaven. God created the ball, not as an ordinary ball, but to be able to choose to stop or go. also saten could run I'm and pick up the ball. God, of course knows what will happen because he is there at that point in our time, while dropping the ball on our point of time.
Saying God knowing takes away free will is saying God can't see the present. because to God every second is the past, present and future.
The Bible says, "You saw me before I was born and scheduled each day of my life before I began to breathe. Every day was recorded in your book!" [Psalm 139:16]
Alex, you are stupid, I have to say that because I never said they were the same.
Determining is controlling the outcome.
Knowing is knowing what the outcome is.
If God knows what the choice we make is, then it will always be that. If it's another outcome, it must be that that we do. If he doesn't know what outcome is going to happen, he's not omniscient. I NEVER said that he was controlling what would happen, so if you don't understand that, then I know that you either are just trying to win or you really are lost and in need of saving.
well wrote... I don't know why he's not understanding smh
Repeating the same refrain does not help your argument.
If you roll a ball down the hill, you know it will roll to the bottom. The ball has no choice in the matter. Because God determined the starting conditions of the universe knowing everything that would ever happen, what we will do was determined at the moment of creation. If God knew before you were born what you would choose for every decision you have ever or will ever make, you do not truly have free will. He created you knowing everything you would do, so he did determine what you would do based on how he created you.
Please don't just repeat he is outside time. It is a meaningless platitude that gets thrown around to try to solve faulty logic.
how about you atheist learn 2 things
1. KNOWING AND DETERMINING ARE DIFFERENT
2. GOD IS OUTSIDE OF TIME.
once you understand those you will understand how free will and God knowing is possible.
if he knows already then we have no choice but to do what he know/ created us to do...
how does free will mean the all knowing God knows nothing and
saying God knowing is like him setting it in stone is saying God knowing determines what we do.
OMG I NEVER SAID THAT
If we have free will, we get to choose what we do, it's not set in stone.
If God is omniscient, then he knows the future and that is set in stone.
I never said he determined the future, he just knows it.
It's still set in stone.
His omniscience does not allow free will.
there's no way that God knows everything if we have free will... free will means he don't know nothing
again why the **** do atheists think knowing and determining are the same?
then you should have agreed to the statement. If you don't think that it means that God's not omniscient, then you need to check up on your logic.
Do we have free will?
well, because God is ousude of time, there is no future for God.
And if you're arguing that he can be omniscient and we still have free will that's a sign of not wanting to lose.
So can your God know the future?
If yes, do you have free will?
No, because if we got to choose, then he would know what we chose, and that wouldn't change. If he didn't know, he wouldn't be omniscient.
no, think of a super smart scientist building a super computer. the think of me with a sledge hammer. bam computer destroyed. does that mean I'm smarter then the scientist? of course not.
So Satan is capable of overruling God when it comes to creation and God doesn't know what he will do?
Satan came at the machine and implanted a virus, adam and Eve did not fight it. they could have easily fought it, as God had told them what to do. like he gave the machine the anivirus, but adam ans eve did not use it
to us, no the future has not happened. we are in time. God is not, to him everything is was and is going to happen all at the same time.
Alex, to go back to your machine analogy, who broke the perfect machine? If God didn't define everything that would ever happen before creation, thus rendering free will an illusion, who changed things from God's plan?
again, if he knows everything then there is no free will... everything has already happened, just like the matrix, this is why no one can do nothing new, cause every has already been done and this is why there is no free will
He knows what we will chose. I'm going to try to explain this very simply.
God is outside of time. so him knowing is him being there and seeing it, while he is before that point in our time.
so God is here in this tome, at this second but also at the next second to.
so if he knows everything then how do we have free will? don't he know everything again?
yes, he can take away our free will if he wants.
so again, if he knew everything, is it safe to say that everything is in his control?
yes, he knew everything at every time at the same time. he is outside of time, and time dies not retain him
so did he know everything at that time?
He made us able to chose to be bad. you may not know this yet so I'll tell you. God is outside of time. he is not restrained by time, and does not have to be in one place in time. he knew he would become angry at the same time he was angry at people for abusing free will, and failing the trail of earth.
which is why he flooded the world, out of anger, which again proves he did not know everything
if you know the future then you made them bad... now if you don't know the future then no you didn't make them bad and that's a reason to become angry
he chose not to lol... smh
He did not make people bad. it's like I didn't make the machine bad, someone ruined it or it failed itself.
He can determine the future, he chose not to.
Well, if he knew that he would have to drown the Earth, then he wouldn't make the people bad so he didn't have to drown them all. Also, if he can't determine the future, he's not omnipotent.
clearly your not understanding... so enjoy the night
why do atheist think knowing and determining is the same. if I built a machine to work perfect, but someone breaks it, or it fails, I know it's not going to work and get mad.
if you knew everything would you get mad? if you know everything then everything is going the way you planned it and that's why you know everything. so why get mad?
umm what? God can get mad, getting angry justly is no sin. he flooded the earth because he loved his creation.
when you read Genesis the God in the old testament did not know everything... if he knew everything he would've never got mad and flooded the earth... a God that knows everything would never get mad at his own creation, if he allow his self to get mad about what he already knew would happen what does that say about him
prove it. I would love to hear you say how God doesn't know everything.