ispoketoanangel wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

Therefore God already knows how we will react and is unable to change it, otherwise he would not know how we would react.

Yes, for some people it might be that god is unable to change it. But it doesn't mean that God is not omnipotent, just that it's not logically possible for God to make some people freely love him.

Whoa there, steady on. We have not even been convinced of his existence yet. Why should loving him even be on the table until this matter has been dealt with?

Furthermore, do you even know what omnipotence is? Limitations on God's power immediately refutes his omnipotence.

Kind of difficult to love someone/thing that you have no reason to believe exists. Since that is the reason most of us do not subscribe to any of your kooky little, sky daddy worshipping cults, that would seem to be a sticking point that would need to be overcome, should this entityt genuinely have any interest in out freely loving him.

The point is that God knows how you would react if you had more evidence, and it might be that you would still freely reject him if you had more evidence, so he doesn't provide more evidence to you because there is no need to.

I am not talking about rejection, of a being we accept exists, I am talking about evidence he even exists, prior to declaring him to be our bff.

However, you are still applying limits to the powers of an omnipotent being.

An omnipotent God is limited in what he can do. Gotcha.

Yes. The standard definition of omnipotent accepted now is that God can do everything that is logically possible.

And yet one would think that demonstrating existence would be trivially easy for such a being. Your continued equivocation between accepting existence and loving forever really does you no favours.

Furthermore, you do not get to redefine omnipotence at your convenience.

I also note your evasion of the subject of parents and the free will of their children.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

Therefore God already knows how we will react and is unable to change it, otherwise he would not know how we would react.

Yes, for some people it might be that god is unable to change it. But it doesn't mean that God is not omnipotent, just that it's not logically possible for God to make some people freely love him.

Kind of difficult to love someone/thing that you have no reason to believe exists. Since that is the reason most of us do not subscribe to any of your kooky little, sky daddy worshipping cults, that would seem to be a sticking point that would need to be overcome, should this entityt genuinely have any interest in out freely loving him.

The point is that God knows how you would react if you had more evidence, and it might be that you would still freely reject him if you had more evidence, so he doesn't provide more evidence to you because there is no need to.

An omnipotent God is limited in what he can do. Gotcha.

Yes. The standard definition of omnipotent accepted now is that God can do everything that is logically possible.

Standard definition made up by whom, and since when?

Tbickle wrote:Wrong. If I have to make a decision as of right now whether to do one of two things, God already knows which one I will pick. If this is true, my notion of free will is an illusion as I cannot do anything but what God (as an omniscient being) already knows I will.

If you freely choose action 1, then God would know that you would freely choose action 1. If you freely choose action 2, then God would know that you would freely choose action 2.

MattHunX wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

Therefore God already knows how we will react and is unable to change it, otherwise he would not know how we would react.

Yes, for some people it might be that god is unable to change it. But it doesn't mean that God is not omnipotent, just that it's not logically possible for God to make some people freely love him.

Kind of difficult to love someone/thing that you have no reason to believe exists. Since that is the reason most of us do not subscribe to any of your kooky little, sky daddy worshipping cults, that would seem to be a sticking point that would need to be overcome, should this entityt genuinely have any interest in out freely loving him.

The point is that God knows how you would react if you had more evidence, and it might be that you would still freely reject him if you had more evidence, so he doesn't provide more evidence to you because there is no need to.

An omnipotent God is limited in what he can do. Gotcha.

Yes. The standard definition of omnipotent accepted now is that God can do everything that is logically possible.

Standard definition made up by whom, and since when?

By theologians, since a long time.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

MattHunX wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

Therefore God already knows how we will react and is unable to change it, otherwise he would not know how we would react.

Yes, for some people it might be that god is unable to change it. But it doesn't mean that God is not omnipotent, just that it's not logically possible for God to make some people freely love him.

Kind of difficult to love someone/thing that you have no reason to believe exists. Since that is the reason most of us do not subscribe to any of your kooky little, sky daddy worshipping cults, that would seem to be a sticking point that would need to be overcome, should this entityt genuinely have any interest in out freely loving him.

The point is that God knows how you would react if you had more evidence, and it might be that you would still freely reject him if you had more evidence, so he doesn't provide more evidence to you because there is no need to.

An omnipotent God is limited in what he can do. Gotcha.

Yes. The standard definition of omnipotent accepted now is that God can do everything that is logically possible.

Standard definition made up by whom, and since when?

By theologians, since a long time.

citation please.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Tbickle wrote:Wrong. If I have to make a decision as of right now whether to do one of two things, God already knows which one I will pick. If this is true, my notion of free will is an illusion as I cannot do anything but what God (as an omniscient being) already knows I will.

If you freely choose action 1, then God would know that you would freely choose action 1. If you freely choose action 2, then God would know that you would freely choose action 2.

There is only ONE action you will choose, that was already foreseen by god some time ago. Therefore, there is no chance for you to actually make a real choice and change "destiny", because it was predetermined, envisioned, that you would choose the one path. And if that path is to not believe in him and despise...etc. and he already knew you'll turn out like that, it doesn't matter, you will burn in hell anyway, because you had no real control over your decisions regarding your approach to the supernatural/him.

ispoketoanangel wrote:By theologians, since a long time.

Citation puhlease.

You see, your definition is anything other than the standard. We have probably lost count of the number of times that the "God is not bound by logic" card is played to get around such as the rock he cannot lift argument.

Omnipotent \Om*nip"o*tent\, a. [F., fr.L. omnipotens, -entis; omnis all + potens powerful, potent. See Potent.]

1. Able in every respect and for every work; unlimited in ability; all-powerful; almighty; as, the Being that can create worlds must be omnipotent. [1913 Webster]

God's will and pleasure and his omnipotent power. --Sir T. More. [1913 Webster]

2. Having unlimited power of a particular kind; as, omnipotent love. --Shak. [1913 Webster]

The Omnipotent, The Almighty; God. --Milton. [1913 Webster]

Source: The Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48

ispoketoanangel said
God is limited in what is logically possible for him to do

also,
Yes, for some people it might be that god is unable to change it

so your admitting your flavour of god is not omnipotent?

ispoketoanangel wrote:

MattHunX wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:

Therefore God already knows how we will react and is unable to change it, otherwise he would not know how we would react.

Yes, for some people it might be that god is unable to change it. But it doesn't mean that God is not omnipotent, just that it's not logically possible for God to make some people freely love him.

Kind of difficult to love someone/thing that you have no reason to believe exists. Since that is the reason most of us do not subscribe to any of your kooky little, sky daddy worshipping cults, that would seem to be a sticking point that would need to be overcome, should this entityt genuinely have any interest in out freely loving him.

The point is that God knows how you would react if you had more evidence, and it might be that you would still freely reject him if you had more evidence, so he doesn't provide more evidence to you because there is no need to.

An omnipotent God is limited in what he can do. Gotcha.

Yes. The standard definition of omnipotent accepted now is that God can do everything that is logically possible.

Standard definition made up by whom, and since when?

By theologians, since a long time.

Translation: a few years ago by desperate apologists, trying to redefine and reinvent concepts about their god in order to try and hold unto their belief, to make them appear logical, and to stay in the debates.

UnderConstruction wrote:
Whoa there, steady on. We have not even been convinced of his existence yet. Why should loving him even be on the table until this matter has been dealt with?

Furthermore, do you even know what omnipotence is? Limitations on God's power immediately refutes his omnipotence.

I don't deny that there is no reason for you to love God if you're not convinced of his existence.

Yes, I know what omnipotence is. Logical limitations on God's power doesn't refute his omnipotence, just pick up any introductory book about philosophy of religion for more details.

And yet one would think that demonstrating existence would be trivially easy for such a being.

Indeed, it would be. But God's purpose, according to Christianity, is that we freely come to love him. Not that He demonstrates His existence to each of us.

Furthermore, you do not get to redefine omnipotence at your convenience.

I use the standard definition of omnipotence found in any philosophy of religion book.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Tbickle wrote:Wrong. If I have to make a decision as of right now whether to do one of two things, God already knows which one I will pick. If this is true, my notion of free will is an illusion as I cannot do anything but what God (as an omniscient being) already knows I will.

If you freely choose action 1, then God would know that you would freely choose action 1. If you freely choose action 2, then God would know that you would freely choose action 2.

Okay, let's try it this way.

Ispoketoanangel, I am going out for lunch today to a destination of which I haven't decided yet. Does God know where I am going for lunch and what I will be eating?

Just so everybody knows, the main supporter of Molinism is the filthy William Lane Craig. Followed by the ass Plantiga.

It's reasonable to suspect that any theology supported by those two bootlickers is seriously deficient.

Does God want me to stick a knife in the toaster or bang my head against a brick wall. I'm current standing in between both just waiting for God to make my decision for me.

But its begs the question, why am i in this situation? God is creepy.

Ihavenofingerprints wrote:Does God want me to stick a knife in the toaster or bang my head against a brick wall. I'm current standing in between both just waiting for God to make my decision for me.

But its begs the question, why am i in this situation? God is creepy.

I wonder what kind of fetish should that be called.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

UnderConstruction wrote:
Whoa there, steady on. We have not even been convinced of his existence yet. Why should loving him even be on the table until this matter has been dealt with?

Furthermore, do you even know what omnipotence is? Limitations on God's power immediately refutes his omnipotence.

I don't deny that there is no reason for you to love God if you're not convinced of his existence.

Yet we are not convinced of his existence. I don't know if you had noticed but we are asking for evidence that he exists, not a reason to love him. Or have you gotten it into your head that we all know he exists but reject him for the lolz?

Yes, I know what omnipotence is. Logical limitations on God's power doesn't refute his omnipotence, just pick up any introductory book about philosophy of religion for more details.

No, clearly you do not. And if you wish to suggest it is a standard definition, you provide the citation. We do not have to do your homework for you.

And yet one would think that demonstrating existence would be trivially easy for such a being.

Indeed, it would be. But God's purpose, according to Christianity, is that we freely come to love him. Not that He demonstrates His existence to each of us.

Yet why should we love him if we do not believe he exists? We seem to be going around in circles here.

Furthermore, you do not get to redefine omnipotence at your convenience.

I use the standard definition of omnipotence found in any philosophy of religion book.

Then provide a citation, given that experience suggests this is anything but a standard definition.

MattHunX wrote:There is only ONE action you will choose, that was already foreseen by god some time ago.

So far, you are correct.

Therefore, there is no chance for you to actually make a real choice and change "destiny", because it was predetermined, envisioned, that you would choose the one path.

I'm not sure what you mean by a "real" choice, but what was envisioned is the free choice you will make. The idea to change destiny is nonsensical, because we would then talk about 2 different worlds, and god actualized one world, not 2 worlds that you can travel between at will.

Tbickle wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Tbickle wrote:Wrong. If I have to make a decision as of right now whether to do one of two things, God already knows which one I will pick. If this is true, my notion of free will is an illusion as I cannot do anything but what God (as an omniscient being) already knows I will.

If you freely choose action 1, then God would know that you would freely choose action 1. If you freely choose action 2, then God would know that you would freely choose action 2.

Okay, let's try it this way.

Ispoketoanangel, I am going out for lunch today to a destination of which I haven't decided yet. Does God know where I am going for lunch and what I will be eating?

Yes, He does.

Out of interest does God decide football matches or do octopus' do?

I'd like an answer to my question please.

In the mean time I'm just going to live my life without cretinous amounts of theological bullshit to bend my head around.

UnderConstruction wrote:

Yet we are not convinced of his existence. I don't know if you had noticed but we are asking for evidence that he exists, not a reason to love him. Or have you gotten it into your head that we all know he exists but reject him for the lolz?

Yes, and my point is that according to molinism, God potentially has a good reason to not provide evidence to you.

No, clearly you do not. And if you wish to suggest it is a standard definition, you provide the citation. We do not have to do your homework for you.

Go to your nearest library and check any introductory philosophy of religion book. Or check on Amazon.

Yet why should we love him if we do not believe he exists? We seem to be going around in circles here.

It wouldn't make sense for you to love him if you don't believe he exists. I don't disagree with you on that point.

Then provide a citation, given that experience suggests this is anything but a standard definition.

I just did. Any introductory philosophy of religion book. Pick the one of your choice.