The Theism/Atheism Mega-thread Hullabaloo Extravaganza

[Cerpin Taxt]

I'll have a double of whatever the people who came up with this are having.

The complexity of their mental contortions is borne out of nothing else but the intellectually dishonest commitment to maintain their presupposed beliefs in light of plainly contradictory facts.

 

[Retro Rob]

Says you. You haven't explained the ways in which "total" and "complete" are not synonyms in this context.

Do my links not work? Stop being lazy -- I'm not doing your work for you.

so what you think on the matter is useless.

Indeed, as what I "think" is based squarely on my opinion.

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.

Says you. You haven't rigorously explained how the future must be fixed with any level of satisfaction.

If the fixing of the future depends on a being actually "seeing" it, then what if he choses not to see it? Is it still "fixed"?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

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

The number of facts known by God is limited by his own choices not to know all of them. That's limited, any way you slice it.

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

How is that a "limit"?

How is it NOT limited? God's knowledge is limited to only that which he chooses to know, instead of everything there is to know.

 

[Retro Rob]

I'll have a double of whatever the people who came up with this are having.

A double of reality...coming up!

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Do my links not work? Stop being lazy -- I'm not doing your work for you.

The links don't do any work for you, either. It remains that you have failed to defend your alleged distinction.

Says you. You haven't rigorously explained how the future must be fixed with any level of satisfaction.

But that's simply a lie. You're a liar. The explanation is right there for everyone to see. Your denial of it only condemns you.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

If the fixing of the future depends on a being actually "seeing" it, then what if he choses not to see it? Is it still "fixed"?

The fixed future does not depend on a being seeing it, the ability of a being to see it depends on it being fixed. A being cannot see a future that does not exist.

 

[Retro Rob]

The number of facts known by God is limited by his own choices not to know all of them. That's limited, any way you slice it.

The number of facts known are intentionally ignored, this doesn't indicated an inherent limit on him since he can easily "know" at will -- that's what you're ignoring.

 

[Retro Rob]

The links don't do any work for you, either. It remains that you have failed to defend your alleged distinction.

Explain how.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Explain how.

No. It's your obligation to defend your own assertions.

 

[Retro Rob]

No. It's your obligation to defend your own assertions.

You asserted that they don't work for me, defend yours.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The number of facts known are intentionally ignored, this doesn't indicated an inherent limit on him since he can easily "know" at will -- that's what you're ignoring.

This doesn't change the fact that a self-imposed limit is still a limit.

If I can eat all the cookies but choose only to eat three, then I have limited my cookie consumption to only three. This is simple English.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

You asserted that they don't work for me, defend yours.

Sorry, passing the buck isn't gonna work. This ain't my first rodeo, hoss.

 

[Retro Rob]

This doesn't change the fact that a self-imposed limit is still a limit.

If I can eat all the cookies but choose only to eat three, then I have limited my cookie consumption to only three. This is simple English.

Fair enough.

 

[alkemyst]

I'll have a double of whatever the people who came up with this are having.

How can god see what will happen in the future if it hasn't been already determined?

That's the faith part. You both should know this, but instead of acknowledging it you fight it.

What age are you two?

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

That's the faith part. You both should know this, but instead of acknowledging it you fight it.

What age are you two?

I'm sorry, but it doesn't matter how much "faith" you have, circles are never gonna have corners. These are plain logical contradictions, and no amount of "faith" is going to resolve them.

 

[Retro Rob]

That's the faith part. You both should know this, but instead of acknowledging it you fight it.

What age are you two?

Faith isn't needed in the face of facts. Cerpin n' crew erected a strawman from the jump with this "limited" nonsense seeing the how total nor inherent onmiscience doesn't imply any limit -- it's an imagined contradiction. It only draw a distinction between turning knowledge off or leaving it on, so to speak.

This is the only way they can argue...by lying and misrepresenting what's being said.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

Fair enough.

Faith isn't needed in the face of facts. Cerpin n' crew erected a strawman from the jump with this "limited" nonsense seeing the how total nor inherent onmiscience doesn't imply any limit -- it's an imagined contradiction. It only draw a distinction between turning knowledge off or leaving it on, so to speak.

This is the only way they can argue...by lying and misrepresenting what's being said.

It takes a lot of chutzpah to concede the point in one post and then go one whining about straw men an misrepresentations in the next one.

I guess I over-estimated the character and integrity of Christians, and that's saying a lot.

 

[JEDIYoda]

How is it NOT limited? God's knowledge is limited to only that which he chooses to know, instead of everything there is to know.

The problem is you(Cerpin n`crew) seem to think you understand God or have some means of knowing what God is capable of.........when even the Bible says God`s thoughts are not our thoughts........

It actually does takes a tremendous amount of chutzpah for Cerpin n` crew to keep trying to explain the unexplainable and then because they or science has no answers to dismiss what is being said.....

Then to erect a stawman from the jump with this "limited" nonsense seeing the how total nor inherent onmiscience doesn't imply any limit -- it's an imagined contradiction. It only draw a distinction between turning knowledge off or leaving it on, so to speak.

This is the only way they can argue...by lying and misrepresenting what's being said. <--- stating the obvious as has been observed throughout this whole thread.....including fake request to want to know and understand.....lolol

 

[Retro Rob]

It takes a lot of chutzpah to concede the point in one post and then go one whining about straw men an misrepresentations in the next one.

I guess I over-estimated the character and integrity of Christians, and that's saying a lot.

No point in debating an issue you pulled out of your ass, so sure, whatever you say, champ.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

No point in debating an issue you pulled out of your ass, so sure, whatever you say, champ.

WTF are you talking about??

YOU claimed that your god saw the future and that made it OK for him to kill babies.

When called on it YOU tried to introduce this bogus distinction between "total" and "inherent" foreknowledge as if it made a difference.

It isn't ME pulling things out of my ass when I point out the things you pull out of your ass don't make the least bit of sense.

Christian integrity exemplified, I suppose. Wow.

 

[sandorski]

How does one Know so much about "God"? One moment we are to small to comprehend the simplest aspect, the next moment we can give such explicit detail it's as if countless Scientists had sifted through every molecule of "God" and put all that Knowledge into countless peer reviewed journals.

 

[Cerpin Taxt]

The problem is you(Cerpin n`crew) seem to think you understand God or have some means of knowing what God is capable of.........when even the Bible says God`s thoughts are not our thoughts........

It actually does takes a tremendous amount of chutzpah for Cerpin n` crew to keep trying to explain the unexplainable and then because they or science has no answers to dismiss what is being said.....

Then to erect a stawman from the jump with this "limited" nonsense seeing the how total nor inherent onmiscience doesn't imply any limit -- it's an imagined contradiction. It only draw a distinction between turning knowledge off or leaving it on, so to speak.

This is the only way they can argue...by lying and misrepresenting what's being said. <--- stating the obvious as has been observed throughout this whole thread.....including fake request to want to know and understand.....lolol

Mark the rest done stuff over the night creep made whole. Funk the fly and the family stone. Heard grapes told the chukar cherries the pear went bananas. Orange you glad the man stay? What if the mango?

 

[disappoint]

Mark the rest done stuff over the night creep made whole. Funk the fly and the family stone. Heard grapes told the chukar cherries the pear went bananas. Orange you glad the man stay? What if the mango?

Sounds like a software or hardware glitch. Have you tried turning yourself off and then turning yourself back on again?

 

[disappoint]

How can god see what will happen in the future if it hasn't been already determined?

What makes you think it hasn't already been determined?

 

[soulcougher73]

How can god see what will happen in the future if it hasn't been already determined?

Duh...because theists made up a new word "inherant omniscience" to try and make their stories not contradict. Still doesnt work though as theists arent that bright. But they tried, so B- for effort.