ispoketoanangel wrote:

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.

Can I go somewhere else other than where God already knows I will go?

ispoketoanangel wrote:

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.

You conveniently left out the part about burning in hell, and not because of your own fault either. A god of the sort who throws people into hellfire, while being fully aware of the choices they will make prior to them even existing, comes across as sadistic and malevolent in every bit. Even if your defined god existed, I would have no reason to love him, only to kill him.

Does God know what He is about to think next?

ispoketoanangel wrote:

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.

And we'll burn in hell because of his apparent negligence, unwillingness to provide evidence.

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

ispoketoanangel wrote: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.

Burning us in hell for our lack of love wouldn't make much sense either, if he was an all-loving, benevolent and wants only good, as you claim.

He who converses with angels,

A simple question: Can a parent, having demonstrated their existence, earn the love of their child, yet still respect their free will?

A simple yes or no will suffice.

MattHunX wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

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.

You conveniently left out the part about burning in hell, and not because of your own fault either. A god of the sort who throws people into hellfire, while being fully aware of the choices they will make prior to them even existing, comes across as sadistic and malevolent in every bit. Even if your defined god existed, I would have no reason to love him, only to kill him.

Thank dog that god doesn't exist.

Anyone who would voluntarily worship such a hideous entity as the one they describe in their bible should be put in an insane asylum. It's sadomasochism to the nth degree.

But I suppose we have to excuse the believers, because it's not clear they have a real choice in what they believe. Poor things.

hotshoe wrote:

MattHunX wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

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.

You conveniently left out the part about burning in hell, and not because of your own fault either. A god of the sort who throws people into hellfire, while being fully aware of the choices they will make prior to them even existing, comes across as sadistic and malevolent in every bit. Even if your defined god existed, I would have no reason to love him, only to kill him.

Thank dog that god doesn't exist.

Anyone who would voluntarily worship such a hideous entity as the one they describe in their bible should be put in an insane asylum. It's sadomasochism to the nth degree.

But I suppose we have to excuse the believers, because it's not clear they have a real choice in what they believe. Poor things.

True. But, that would mean our arguments, debates...etc. are therefore pointless.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

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.

I'm confused. Are you making the accusation that we know he exists but reject him or not?

And we are back to "absence of evidence for God is evidence for God". Not at all convincing.

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.

Name a book. Apparently many of your fellow theists have yet to read any of them either. Otherwise all of them would likely subscribe to your self serving redefinition of omnipotence as well, rather than performing mental gymnastics to reconcile it with its internal contradictions.

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.

So if he genuinely wants our love, why would he not at least make us aware that there is someone/thing to love?

Then provide a citation, given that experience suggests this is anything but a standard definition.[/quot
e]

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

You have no idea how citing sources works, do you?

MattHunX wrote:

hotshoe wrote:

MattHunX wrote:

You conveniently left out the part about burning in hell, and not because of your own fault either. A god of the sort who throws people into hellfire, while being fully aware of the choices they will make prior to them even existing, comes across as sadistic and malevolent in every bit. Even if your defined god existed, I would have no reason to love him, only to kill him.

Thank dog that god doesn't exist.

Anyone who would voluntarily worship such a hideous entity as the one they describe in their bible should be put in an insane asylum. It's sadomasochism to the nth degree.

But I suppose we have to excuse the believers, because it's not clear they have a real choice in what they believe. Poor things.

True. But, that would mean our arguments, debates...etc. are therefore pointless.

Could be. I'd rather believe that (usually) than believe that the miserable christian specimens I meet here are such nasty people in real life that they freely choose to suck the cock of the same god who they gleefully expect to burn me in hell.

Tbickle wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

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.

Can I go somewhere else other than where God already knows I will go?

Answering no doesn't mean that your decision to go to a certain restaurant is not free, it just means you can't jump from one actualized world to another. If you will freely choose to go to McDonalds in this world, going somewhere else is what you would do in another world, a world that God didn't actualize.

MattHunX wrote:

And we'll burn in hell because of his apparent negligence, unwillingness to provide evidence.

The point being made with molinism is that you would freely reject God if you would have the evidence you expect God to give you.

Burning us in hell for our lack of love wouldn't make much sense either, if he was an all-loving, benevolent and wants only good, as you claim.

I'm not qualified to discuss who ends up in hell, what is hell like, if hell is temporary, etc.

Having issues with the quote button so I'm using "" instead.

"I'm confused. Are you making the accusation that we know he exists but reject him or not"

No, I'm not making that accusation.

The only point being made is that there is no reason for God to provide evidence to people who would freely reject Him if they had the evidence they want.

"Name a book. Apparently many of your fellow theists have yet to read any of them either. Otherwise all of them would likely subscribe to your self serving redefinition of omnipotence as well, rather than performing mental gymnastics to reconcile it with its internal contradictions."

The coherence of theism, by Richard Swinburne.

"So if he genuinely wants our love, why would he not at least make us aware that there is someone/thing to love?"

Perhaps because he knows you would freely reject his love if you had more evidence?

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Tbickle wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Yes, He does.

Can I go somewhere else other than where God already knows I will go?

Answering no doesn't mean that your decision to go to a certain restaurant is not free, it just means you can't jump from one actualized world to another. If you will freely choose to go to McDonalds in this world, going somewhere else is what you would do in another world, a world that God didn't actualize.

So, that's a "no" I presume?

ispoketoanangel wrote:I'm not qualified to discuss who ends up in hell, what is hell like, if hell is temporary, etc.

.......or whether your god even exists, or the definition of the word omnipotent, etc., etc...........

ispoketoanangel wrote:That's an elementary error of logic.

I love it when people with imaginary friends think they're remotely in a position to lecture me on logic. Good fucking work.

There is no contradiction with God knowing what we would freely do under certain circumstances.

Bzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. If he knows what I will choose, then I have no choice, because I can only choose what he knows I will choose. If I can choose anything other than what he knows I will choose, then he isn't omniscient. This is a true dichotomy.

Put another way, I have a stone in my hand. Which stone will you choose?

You fail.

Tbickle wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Tbickle wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Yes, He does.

Can I go somewhere else other than where God already knows I will go?

Answering no doesn't mean that your decision to go to a certain restaurant is not free, it just means you can't jump from one actualized world to another. If you will freely choose to go to McDonalds in this world, going somewhere else is what you would do in another world, a world that God didn't actualize.

So, that's a "no" I presume?

Yes, that's a no, in this actualized world, you cannot go anywhere else than the freely decision you will make that God already knows about.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Tbickle wrote:
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.

Tbickle wrote:Can I go somewhere else other than where God already knows I will go?

ispoketoanangel wrote:Answering no doesn't mean that your decision to go to a certain restaurant is not free, it just means you can't jump from one actualized world to another. If you will freely choose to go to McDonalds in this world, going somewhere else is what you would do in another world, a world that God didn't actualize.

Non-sense. You either go to destination "A"...or you go to destination "A". Nothing else. One path. One foreseen by a god. It feels free to the traveler, subjectively, because he is not aware of a higher being who already envisioned where he would go, what path he would take. The being might not even be an interfering one, but then, it doesn't need to be, since the outcome is already determined, and it lets events run their course, regardless of the positive or negative outcome, but still punishes those who "choose"the wrong path.

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Tbickle wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

Tbickle wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:

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.

Can I go somewhere else other than where God already knows I will go?

Answering no doesn't mean that your decision to go to a certain restaurant is not free, it just means you can't jump from one actualized world to another. If you will freely choose to go to McDonalds in this world, going somewhere else is what you would do in another world, a world that God didn't actualize.

Except I get hit by a bus on my way to McDonalds. Did I have a free choice in that considering that dog was already aware it would happen anyway?

hackenslash wrote:

ispoketoanangel wrote:That's an elementary error of logic.

I love it when people with imaginary friends think they're remotely in a position to lecture me on logic. Good fucking work.

There is no contradiction with God knowing what we would freely do under certain circumstances.

Bzzzzzzzzz. Thank you for playing. If he knows what I will choose, then I have no choice, because I can only choose what he knows I will choose. If I can choose anything other than what he knows I will choose, then he isn't omniscient. This is a true dichotomy.

Put another way, I have a stone in my hand. Which stone will you choose?

You fail.

Of course you can only do what you will freely choose to do. Doing something else is what you would do in another world. Again, it does not follow that we are not free, you're just reformulating the same logical mistake.