Omniscience and Free Will are mutually exclusive. Typical Christian dogma states that god is omniscient, and bestows Free Will upon us, but this is contradictory at best.
Welcome to Smashboards, the world's largest Super Smash Brothers community! Over 250,000 Smash Bros. fans from around the world have come to discuss these great games in over 19 million posts!
You are currently viewing our boards as a visitor. Click here to sign up right now and start on your path in the Smash community!
Snex, you ignored it again so here, read this time. <.<EDIT: Snex, I just remembered a history altering event in the christian favor. Have you ever heard of "The Battle of Milvian Bridge" ? Well, if you haven't, it is called the Vision of Constantine and here is the Wiki article, if you want another one I will definitely get it for you. This goes back to what we were recently talking about, the vision of angels.
"It is commonly stated that on the evening of October 27, with the armies preparing for battle, Constantine had a vision which lead him to fight under the protection of the Christian God. The details of that vision, however, differ between the sources reporting it. It is believed that the sign of the cross appeared and Constantine heard "In this sign, you shall conquer" in Greek.
Lactantius states that, in the night before the battle, Constantine was commanded in a dream to "delineate the heavenly sign on the shields of his soldiers" (de mort. pers. 44,5). He obeyed and marked the shields with a sign "denoting Christ". Lactantius describes that sign as a "staurogram", or a Latin cross with its upper end rounded in a P-like fashion. There is no certain evidence that Constantine ever used that sign, opposed to the better known chi-rho sign described by Eusebius.
From Eusebius, two accounts of the battle survive. The first, shorter one in the Ecclesiastical History leaves no doubt that God helped Constantine but doesn't mention any vision. In his later Life of Constantine, Eusebius gives a detailed account of a vision and stresses that he had heard the story from the emperor himself. According to this version, Constantine with his army was marching somewhere (Eusebius doesn't specify the actual location of the event, but it clearly isn't in the camp at Rome), when he looked up to the sun and saw a cross of light above it, and with it the Greek words "Εν Τούτωι Νίκα". The Latin translation is in hoc signo vinces — "In this (sign), conquer". At first he was unsure of the meaning of the apparition, but in the following night he had a dream in which Christ explained to him that he should use the sign against his enemies. Eusebius then continues to describe the labarum, the military standard used by Constantine in his later wars against Licinius, showing the chi-rho sign."
No, not exactly because Constantine SAW the chi-rho sign. So then he had it painted on to his shields, and they won. They had never seen this symbol until Constantine had it painted on those shields. Yet it existed in other parts of the world, and Constantine had not seen it. That's from my World History book btw.your post about constantine no more supports christianity than stories about other sects winning battles after praying supports the existence of those gods.
chi rho is just two greek letters. they existed way before constantine and he would have known about them. and according to your own source, the entire story is hearsay anyway.No, not exactly because Constantine SAW the chi-rho sign. So then he had it painted on to his shields, and they won. They had never seen this symbol until Constantine had it painted on those shields. Yet it existed in other parts of the world, and Constantine had not seen it. That's from my World History book btw.
And sorry, I hadn't seen you post, due to the other things on top of it.
Chi rho is the Greek L and X, which the X is interpreted as Christ and the L is something else. But them used together, had not been used near him, because of the fact all Christians were being punished, beaten, and kept away.chi rho is just two greek letters. they existed way before constantine and he would have known about them.
and really, think about how stupid what youre saying is. baseball players will wear the same pair of socks for the whole season. does that mean wearing the same pair of socks helps you win baseball games?
I heard that as well, I also heard, it was because the views of his people that he waited until his deathbed to publicly convert. I do not know which one is valid.Also, it's noted that Constantine fell upon Christianity as a crutch. Hence why he didn't convert until his deathbed, which is odd that he had some minor say in how the bible was edited.
The cross itself means nothing though. Don't believe me? Pray that God will save you and wear crosses all over your body, then jump off a cliff. See how that works out for you. Constantine was a well noted, and superior, strategist. He won battles because he was a capable warrior.
That's not the point of the argument at all. The FSM, et al, are brought up in response to attempts to shift the burden of proof to the person that is skeptical of religion, e.g. saying "you can't DISPROVE the existence of God." While that may or may not be true, the same can be said of any other arbitrarily silly and patently unfalsifiable construct like the IPU and the FSM, and Russell's Teapot. The point is to illustrate that the burden of proof lies with theists who claim God exists, and not with those who question or reject those claims.Now i've heard the pink invisible unicorn/ flying spaghetti monster before. I understand what a person is trying to say. They are saying that such things are impossible to exist in nature and don't work according to natural law. So we are to assume that god would have to be subject to the same laws as animals, meatballs and noodles. However a supernatural being would not be subject to such laws (look up the definition of supernatural) and can bend them or even break them if it wishes to. So that analogy doesn't fly.
The whole of this counter-argument is "God doesn't sound like something man could/would have made up," which is an argument from ignorance. The counter-argument is kind of a strawman in the first place though, because the idea that "God is just something made up from man" is an attempt to explain the preponderence of the belief, and not an argument against the existence of God.Now to address Santa vs God. The argument is that God is just something made up from man, it was an idea to make people feel better and to have hope in dark times. This argument would be valid if we were not talking about the god of the bible. The God of the bible is not exactly something that man would come up with. God isn't something you would normally see, taste, feel or hear. He isn't something you would set in your house. God also detests a lot of things and calls them sin. He even warns us about hell. Does this sound like something every one would appeal to? No, not really. In fact if it was so appealing to man, god would be a lot more popular right now and we wouldn't even be having this debate. Bottom line, stuff made up from man is according to what they want and for their enjoyment. Which is why we have so many things like spaghetti. Nothing wrong with that food either. God is not entertaining or happy fun time at FIRST GLANCE (more on this later). I know the other side agrees. So that argument is made null.
This analogy is invalid because you did not create both the car and the pedestrian with foreknowledge of this event, which is the crux of the argument. If you DID, then you ARE at fault in the same way you'd be at fault if you sent two wind-up toys at one another such that they collide and are destroyed, because you're responsible for the scenario to begin with.For one, God warns people of hell and tells you how to avoid it. It would be like me seeing a guy crossing the street and a car is coming straight at him. I couldn't get there in time to push him out of the way. I tell him to jump out of the way because I didn't want to see him get hurt or die. He chooses to ignore what I said and continues to walk and gets hit by the car and dies. Who's fault was it? I did everything I could to save him, but in the end you can't save someone who wants to be hit by that car. It was his choice to make.
Nope not following this. Dont just say something, prove it. If i know everything, that means your not free? that makes no sense. Knowing isn't forcing. I know what your gonna do means i caused you to do it?Omniscience and Free Will are mutually exclusive. Typical Christian dogma states that god is omniscient, and bestows Free Will upon us, but this is contradictory at best.
im sorry, where did he say anything about CAUSATION? he didnt. he said omniscience and free will are incompatible. address THAT claim, not some wild nonsense you make up yourself.peeze said:Nope not following this. Dont just say something, prove it. If i know everything, that means your not free? that makes no sense. Knowing isn't forcing. I know what your gonna do means i caused you to do it?
If I'm omniscient I know everything.Nope not following this. Dont just say something, prove it. If i know everything, that means your not free? that makes no sense. Knowing isn't forcing. I know what your gonna do means i caused you to do it?
A meteorologist predicts(if you will) future weather events. So he causes the hurricane to come because he knows during the months of June-November hurricanes strike?
On a side note Constantine was a hypocrite. "Convert or die" is definetly not christian, no matter who does it pope, emperor, ronald mcdonald.
This and many other passages similar are in the bible.Deuteronomy 17:2-5 said:2 If a man or woman living among you in one of the towns the LORD gives you is found doing evil in the eyes of the LORD your God in violation of his covenant, 3 and contrary to my command has worshiped other gods, bowing down to them or to the sun or the moon or the stars of the sky, 4 and this has been brought to your attention, then you must investigate it thoroughly. If it is true and it has been proved that this detestable thing has been done in Israel, 5 take the man or woman who has done this evil deed to your city gate and stone that person to death.
Sorry for double post!If I'm omniscient I know everything.
God is omniscient he is all knowing, by saying he gave us free will is a contradiction. By being all knowing he knows all our actions before they happen. That is the contradiction of being omniscient.
This and many other passages similar are in the bible.
Again no I'm not.Sorry for double post!
Again your not proving anything by restating it. Since when is knowing the future causing the future? answer that question!
Your impling that knowing=causing.
Those laws were given by god, by worshiping another god you are to be put to death.Oh btw i said christian. That law was given to jews not christiansBut if you want to analyze it further very well. The law of Israel said worshipping other gods(molech, ba'al) and not the lord(yahweh, jehovah) was punishable by law. Therefore it was against the law, that wasnt convert or die, that was break the law and die. That's why it said "living among your towns" They didnt go out and kill people, it was in they're own city. Try again though
Jesus didn't abolish the old law he came to reinforce it.Matthew 5:17 said:17"Do not think that I have come to abolish the Law or the Prophets; I have not come to abolish them but to fulfill them.
no, this is only the case if god created them. you believe he did, but aeisir did not mention that. deal with what he did mention first.1)( i actually had to look this up for my own good not yours) Causation: the action of causing or producing
If humans have no free will as Aesir was aruging, god CAUSES(programs whatever) you to do what he wants you to do. Causation is implied in a discussion about free will.
it is completely irrelevant why you said it. if you think "disprove the FSM" is a poor argument, then why did you say "disprove god?" you admit to using poor arguments but complain when you think others use them?2)no i didnt we were at the time arguing omniscience(post#1539) then you didnot reply to the premise in my post(going against your own"how to reply" thread) and instead said i had no solid evidence proving god. i replied with you have no solid evidence disproving god.
You're twisting the words of the bible now, regardless if it was law, it was still "Convert or die." Don't down play this because it's not going to work.Aesir:
I didnt ignore anything. i told you, it wasnt a matter of convert or die, it was a matter of "follow the law or die". Notice nowhere in that verse did it say those who worshipped others gods were to convert to Judaism nowhere. it said dont follow the law and your stoned.
What second point? all you did was state I was going to post a counter argument? that's clearly obvious as this is a debate, stop playing troll.What are you talking about? I didnt twist anything. Where did it say convert?! It said this is law. Break law this is punishment.
Did it say "make them become jew, if not stone"? thats twisting it Aesir.
It said"investigate, it they're breaking the law kill them". Stop plucking at straws Aesir, you know im right, thats why you didnt even address the 2nd point in that post.
Even if someone in this thread did, you wouldn't believe them. God speaks to us through the bible, his written word. It is much easier to understand something when it's written down, not told to you. It's hard to study something you were told, that's why we take notes in school.cubemario has claimed that it is GOD who tells us how to avoid hell. but is that the case? has anybody in this thread ever been spoken to directly by god? i know i have not.
If you go by that logic, then I guess you shouldn't believe a word anyone says. I'm sure you hold that burden of proof to every single person you meet, see on the TV, every book you read. Or how about the food you eat, you gotta know everything that's in it right?it is always other humans telling me about god. god has never told me anything himself. so when god decides to tell me something, he will know exactly what burden of proof he has to meet (he is god after all, he knows all). but until that day, when YOU HUMANS make claims, YOU HUMANS need to back them up. it is really that simple.
Whether or not a form of communication is preferable to people is subjective. I don't even know why you're making this point.Even if someone in this thread did, you wouldn't believe them. God speaks to us through the bible, his written word. It is much easier to understand something when it's written down, not told to you. It's hard to study something you were told, that's why we take notes in school.
Basically, yes. If I think a food is going to be detrimental to my health, I'll research it.If you go by that logic, then I guess you shouldn't believe a word anyone says. I'm sure you hold that burden of proof to every single person you meet, see on the TV, every book you read. Or how about the food you eat, you gotta know everything that's in it right?
There are many cases of scientists being dishonest. Everyone has the capacity for greed, and as a scientist, you're often in a situation to take advantage of that.I would also like to see the burden of proof when it comes to scientists. Give me proof of their credentials. Give me proof that the results of their experiments are totally unbiased and that there isn't a single possibility they have left some information out in their reports. After all, many people are dishonest, scientists have the same capacity for it as anyone else does.
Go to the right places to see miracles? WTF? That's like saying "Go to the right places and you'll see that God doesn't exist". Possibly the biggest, most vague cop-out statement I've heard yet.Go to the right places and you'll see miracles. Of course it's your choice to believe them or not. Even several people in the bible thought that jesus' miracles were done through satan. Jesus actually responds to this and provides the explanation. The bible explains itself better than most people would have you think.
The concept of free will is negligible when you actually think about what free will is. With free will comes the capacity to sin, or "cause grievance against God". God defines this as punishable by being thrown into Hell. By being omniscient, God knew that humanity would royally **** up, no? Then he basically doomed his creation. Doesn't sound like an all-loving God to me. In fact, it sounds like basically every other religion out there. Christianity was so obviously made up by men it's astounding that you guys don't see it.The whole argument your making is that because god designed us to have free will, he's responsible for everything wrong because were allowed to make our own choices, which is apparently a flawed concept in your mind. Do you not understand what free will means?
People are a product of our environment. External forces are what make us who we are (our experiences, etc.). But that's beside the point. You keep dodging the real issue at hand. Apparently God is the ultimate source of everything. Sin had to come somewhere.The ability to choose one's actions, or determine what reasons are acceptable motivation for actions; The doctrine that humans (and possibly other entities) are able to choose their actions without being caused to do so by external forces
Define what you mean by "free will" first, because you flip flop on the actual meaning of it in every single one of your posts.Honestly, i'm not even sure why this needs to be discussed, free will is a very easy concept to grasp. Does god somehow make us do stuff were not supposed to do? It seems your very strong in your belief that god doesn't exist. I guess it isn't possible at all to believe otherwise, I guess you have no choice in the matter. So I guess you can't decide to get out of bed tomorrow. No free will right?
The burden of proof is on YOU, the believer. If you're so convinced that God exists, show us some of your experiences with him instead of writing it off as it can only be experienced personally. You must have something beyond a reasonable doubt, or you wouldn't believe it so vehemently. Although I doubt it.Also snex, it seems like your not even trying to debate at all. You just get on your soap box and tell us your experiences and how you've never seen this and that. It's pretty easy to dismiss everything I say when you can just draw from your own experiences. I'm sorry you've had such bad experiences around christians. I really am. Though perhaps you should get off the soap box and stop drawing everything from a personal experience and taking it as fact.
Because you're not the first person to come in here spouting off these arguments. They're terrible arguments. If there was some way to transfter everything that knowledgeable people know about the subject and pass it on to Christians, I'd do it, because the majority of Christians are agonizingly dumb on the subject matter. They don't even take the time to research topics; they just take whatever their superiors give them as fact.Perhaps this topic should be closed down, I see no fruit bearing from this. The only one who can actually be polite is hyuga.