Originally posted by JimL
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
Apologetics 301 Guidelines
If you think this is the area where you tell everyone you are sorry for eating their lunch out of the fridge, it probably isn't the place for you
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
This forum is open discussion between atheists and all theists to defend and debate their views on religion or non-religion. Please respect that this is a Christian-owned forum and refrain from gratuitous blasphemy. VERY wide leeway is given in range of expression and allowable behavior as compared to other areas of the forum, and moderation is not overly involved unless necessary. Please keep this in mind. Atheists who wish to interact with theists in a way that does not seek to undermine theistic faith may participate in the World Religions Department. Non-debate question and answers and mild and less confrontational discussions can take place in General Theistics.
Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less
Does an Omniscient Creator Lead to Fatalism?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostI take it you were looking in the mirror during that rant. Seriously Sparko, the logic is pretty obvious in my argument, it's completely missing in yours. You're making yourself a laughing stock.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostNo he isn't.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNo? Then how about you refute the argument then Adrift. If god is eternally omniscient, if he knows your entire future eternally, knows your entire future prior to his even creating you, then once you are born, how can you freely do other than what was eternally known you would do, how could you be responsible for the your choices when they existed as knowledge before you were even born?. . . the gospel of Christ: for it is the power of God unto salvation to every one that believeth; . . . -- Romans 1:16 KJV
. . . that Christ died for our sins according to the scriptures; And that he was buried, and that he rose again the third day according to the scriptures: . . . -- 1 Corinthians 15:3-4 KJV
Whosoever believeth that Jesus is the Christ is born of God: . . . -- 1 John 5:1 KJV
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostNo? Then how about you refute the argument then Adrift. If god is eternally omniscient, if he knows your entire future eternally, knows your entire future prior to his even creating you, then once you are born, how can you freely do other than what was eternally known you would do, how could you be responsible for the your choices when they existed as knowledge before you were even born?
Last edited by Adrift; 02-01-2018, 10:49 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostI don't know about or understand the whole quantum physics side discussion, but Sparko (and I think a couple of others) already explained this. God's middle knowledge is based on your actions, not the other way around, or better put, "God knows the counterfactual choices that free creatures would make in any possible set of circumstance". If you're sincerely curious about the subject, I suggest actually doing some research on the subject of Molinism, middle knowledge, and libertarian free will. The Christian philosopher William Lane Craig has a decent article on the subject called "No Other Name": A Middle Knowledge Perspective on the Exclusivity of Salvation Through Christ. Also, the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy has a fine article on the subject that includes both a summary of the theory as well as criticisms, and replies to those criticisms. Here's a bit from the article,
Last edited by JimL; 02-01-2018, 03:13 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSo, like I said, you can't answer, have no argument of your own to refute mine other than to post a bunch of stuff that you probably never read, and certainly haven't thought through or understand. Think about it, middle knowledge is just a weak attempt at skirting the obvious fact that omniscience, eternal omniscience, and free will are not compatible. If god were omniscient then the very idea that he has this made up nonsense called middle knowledge is ridiculous and again contradicts the very notion of eternal omniscience. And Adrift, it would be nice if when arguing an issue that you claim to understand, or have a viewpoint on, that you argue it in your own words rather than simply citing a bunch of stuff, or as they say arguing by web link.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostSo, like I said, you can't answer, have no argument of your own to refute mine other than to post a bunch of stuff that you probably never read, and certainly haven't thought through or understand. Think about it, middle knowledge is just a weak attempt at skirting the obvious fact that omniscience, eternal omniscience, and free will are not compatible. If god were omniscient then the very idea that he has this made up nonsense called middle knowledge is ridiculous and again contradicts the very notion of eternal omniscience. And Adrift, it would be nice if when arguing an issue that you claim to understand, or have a viewpoint on, that you argue it in your own words rather than simply citing a bunch of stuff, or as they say arguing by web link.
You are pretty pathetic, JimL and while you might think you are being clever, everyone reading your posts knows that you are just ignorant.
It's really sad.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Sparko View PostThis is why I don't even bother to try with you JimL and just mock you and dismiss you. Adrift tried his best to show you what molinism is about and answer your repeated question about how God can know the future and there still be free will. But instead of even trying to understand, or do even a bit of study on the topic, you just pretend that adrift "can't answer" and "has no argument"
You are pretty pathetic, JimL and while you might think you are being clever, everyone reading your posts knows that you are just ignorant.
It's really sad.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOh but you do bother yourself with me and my arguments Sparko, it's just that your refutations are always shot down wherein your mocking and dismissing of me begins. Adrift didn't say anything, Adrift posted a link, a link btw which had nothing to do with your video tape recording argument. Btw, isn't there a rule against debate by web link?
My intention was to help you gain understanding on an admittedly complicated topic. You're proving once again that you're not really interested in these topics, but in how you can "win the argument". I'm not in the slightest bit interested in that sort of discussion. If you want the title "winner of the thread", you have my blessing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by Adrift View PostJim, this is the second time you've attempted to out me for debating by web link in this thread. Nowhere in my post did I debate by web link. I replied in a perfectly standard and acceptable fashion according to Tweb's long standing rules. You've posted on the forum long enough now that you should know this.
My intention was to help you gain understanding on an admittedly complicated topic. You're proving once again that you're not really interested in these topics, but in how you can "win the argument". I'm not in the slightest bit interested in that sort of discussion. If you want the title "winner of the thread", you have my blessing.
Comment
-
Originally posted by JimL View PostOh but you do bother yourself with me and my arguments Sparko, it's just that your refutations are always shot down wherein your mocking and dismissing of me begins. Adrift didn't say anything, Adrift posted a link, a link btw which had nothing to do with your video tape recording argument. Btw, isn't there a rule against debate by web link?Last edited by Sparko; 02-02-2018, 08:14 AM.
Comment
-
Sorry, got too busy to look at this for a bit.
Originally posted by lao tzu View PostThe decision to view Paul's writings as inspired has been subject to church authority from their earliest adoption. The church made that decision and the church can reverse that decision, though clearly not without cost.
Some reversals are easier than others.
A tranche of Paul's letters, including the pastorals, has always been viewed with suspicion within and without the churchLast edited by One Bad Pig; 02-06-2018, 10:56 AM.Veritas vos Liberabit<>< Learn Greek <>< Look here for an Orthodox Church in America<><Ancient Faith Radio
sigpic
I recommend you do not try too hard and ...research as little as possible. Such weighty things give me a headache. - Shunyadragon, Baha'i apologist
Comment
Related Threads
Collapse
Topics | Statistics | Last Post | ||
---|---|---|---|---|
Started by whag, 04-22-2024, 06:28 PM
|
17 responses
104 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
04-23-2024, 01:46 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
70 responses
398 views
0 likes
|
Last Post 04-26-2024, 05:47 AM | ||
Started by Neptune7, 04-15-2024, 06:54 AM
|
25 responses
165 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Cerebrum123
04-17-2024, 08:31 AM
|
||
Started by whag, 04-09-2024, 01:04 PM
|
254 responses
1,174 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by tabibito
Today, 04:59 PM
|
||
Started by Hypatia_Alexandria, 02-04-2024, 05:06 AM
|
190 responses
926 views
0 likes
|
Last Post
by Sparko
Today, 12:53 PM
|
Comment