• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

The Theism/Atheism Mega-thread Hullabaloo Extravaganza

Page 28 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Retro Rob said:
I don't beleive God has a plan, nor do I believe the Bible supports a specific plan for people as indivuduals.

I think that we are free to serve God or not, becasue if God does have a plan, then he cannot justly punish people for doing something he foreknew they'd do.
Click to expand...

I'm confused by this. He has infinite knowledge of all that's going to happen. How does that translate to a "purpose" and not a "plan"?
 
Retro Rob said:
Not when you play the Nazi card, no, don't expect one.
Click to expand...
It isn't a problem with my argument that you are uncomfortable with the consequences of your own beliefs. You're just baselessly dismissing it because you don't want to confront it.

It's a fallacy of desperation, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
You don't appear to understand what a fallacy is.
 
jackstar7 said:
I'm confused by this. He has infinite knowledge of all that's going to happen. How does that translate to a "purpose" and not a "plan"?
Click to expand...

Simple. Because we have free-will, and also I believe God has inherent omniscience.

This is why I find it easy to reconcile. I know that's debated, but we cannot have free will if God has Total Omniscience.
 
I agree 100% with this quote!! Let me expand the thought a bit to say that looking back on most of the questions asked including the fake sincerity that SlowSpyder exhibited in asking his questions concerning the Bible and understanding the Bible...

Then soulcougher and his diatribe, his classic Atheist talking points that lead to nowhere....

Almost all of these posts by Soulcougher and SlowSpyder and JD50 and Jackstar have all been insincere in all the points they use to try to refute what is being said......

Then when backd into a corner they always resort to other nonsense such as playing the Nazi Card or saying that doesn`t prove anything or bring Atheist evangelists into the discussion...like.....Seth Andrews and the worse offense is when they all say -- your definition of the word is wrong...now that is laughable and sad!!

Retro Rob said:
It's a fallacy of desperation, as far as I'm concerned.
Click to expand...
 
Retro Rob said:
Simple. Because we have free-will, and also I believe God has inherent omniscience.
Click to expand...
But that is not what you have argued. You have argued that God's killing is justified because he knows the future as it pertains to those he decides to kill. That is not the limited knowledge described by so-called "inherent omniscience."

EDIT: I should also add that this doesn't actually resolve the contradiction with free will and moral agency. It remains that the future is fixed and sitting there waiting to be apprehended by any being with the relevant power to do so. Just because God decides where to skip ahead in the script and read a few lines while ignoring the others does not mean that the rest of the script is not already written and just waiting to be read.
 
Last edited:
Cerpin Taxt said:
But that is not what you have argued. You have argued that God's killing is justified because he knows the future as it pertains to those he decides to kill. That is not the limited knowledge described by so-called "inherent omniscience."

EDIT: I should also add that this doesn't actually resolve the contradiction with free will and moral agency. It remains that the future is fixed and sitting there waiting to be apprehended by any being with the relevant power to do so. Just because God decides where to skip ahead in the script and read a few lines while ignoring the others does not mean that the rest of the script is not already written and just waiting to be read.
Click to expand...

It's doesn't mean "limited knowledge" Einstien.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Omniscience
 
Last edited:
Retro Rob said:
What's called "indoctrination"?

Read my post carefully...I said proper parenting is limiting your children's choices.

On the religious front, I support parents teaching their kids whatever they deem necessary, even if that includes telling them there is no God.
Click to expand...

I agree with this. For good or bad, whatever the parents religion choice is for their child should not be interfered with.

Some parents actually choose different religions for their children and that is OK too.

When the child is old enough, mid teens or so IMHO; they can choose to continue or not.
 
alkemyst said:
I agree with this. For good or bad, whatever the parents religion choice is for their child should not be interfered with.

Some parents actually choose different religions for their children and that is OK too.

When the child is old enough, mid teens or so IMHO; they can choose to continue or not.
Click to expand...

Yeah, no matter what, parents should be free to teach whatever they seem fit.
 
jackstar7 said:
Total. You stated god doesn't possess total omniscience.
Click to expand...

How is having the ability to know all that is to be known "limited"?

All inherent omniscience means is that God uses his foreknowledge discretionary, hence the phrase "chooses to know"

How is that a "limit"?
 
Retro Rob said:
How is having the ability to know all that is to be known "limited"?

All inherent omniscience means is that God uses his foreknowledge discretionary, hence the phrase "chooses to know"

How is that a "limit"?
Click to expand...

It is not total. That means it is inherently less than total.

The ability to know isn't the same as actually knowing.

Also, what makes you attribute this level of omniscience to god?

Or does god choose not to know some things? It's all very confusing as an trait.
 
jackstar7 said:
It is not total. That means it is inherently less than total.

The ability to know isn't the same as actually knowing.

Also, what makes you attribute this level of omniscience to god?

Or does god choose not to know some things? It's all very confusing as an trait.
Click to expand...

All total means, per my links, is "actually knowing", inherent means "choosing to know".

The difference being the same as turning your foreknowledge off, as opposed to leaving it on.

Why don't you just read the definitions in my links, or look them up. I can tell you aren't reading them.

Or simply agree to disagree. It seems you want to define total as "complete" v inherent "incomplete".

That's not what those words means as per omniscience -- I think you know that.
 
Last edited:
Retro Rob said:
It's doesn't mean "limited knowledge" Einstien.

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniscience

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Omniscience
Click to expand...

Anything less than total knowledge is limited knowledge, by definition. All "inherent foreknowledge" means is that god imposes those limitations on himself by deliberately ignoring available knowable facts.

Retro Rob said:
All total means, per my links, is "actually knowing", inherent means "choosing to know".

The difference being the same as turning your foreknowledge off, as opposed to leaving it on.
Click to expand...
That doesn't resolve the remaining contradiction, as I already explained. "Turning off foreknowledge" does not mean that the future is not still fixed, waiting to be known should god decide to know it.
 
Cerpin Taxt said:
Anything less than total knowledge is limited knowledge, by definition. All "inherent foreknowledge" means is that god imposes those limitations on himself by deliberately ignoring available knowable facts.


That doesn't resolve the remaining contradiction, as I already explained. "Turning off foreknowledge" does not mean that the future is not still fixed, waiting to be known should god decide to know it.
Click to expand...

You'd be right if total in this context means "complete" and inherent meant "incomplete", but that's not the case here.

I don't think the future is fixed, just God simply can look into it. I cannot exactly explain what that means since I have no clue what seeing the future as it will happen actually means.
 
Retro Rob said:
You'd be right if total in this context means "complete" and inherent meant "incomplete", but that's not the case here.
Click to expand...
Says you. You haven't explained the ways in which "total" and "complete" are not synonyms in this context.

I don't think the future is fixed...
Click to expand...
Yes, but as I've explained, your position is not consistent, so what you think on the matter is useless.

...just God simply can look into it.
Click to expand...
And see what, exactly? If there's something there to be seen, then it must exist. If it exists, then it has a definite reality. If it has a definite reality, then it can't be indefinite. Therefore it must be fixed.

I cannot exactly explain what that means since I have no clue what seeing the future as it will happen actually means.
Click to expand...
That much is painfully obvious.
 
Retro Rob said:
You'd be right if total in this context means "complete" and inherent meant "incomplete", but that's not the case here.

I don't think the future is fixed, just God simply can look into it. I cannot exactly explain what that means since I have no clue what seeing the future as it will happen actually means.
Click to expand...


How can god see what will happen in the future if it hasn't been already determined?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top