musKeeto: @Ihe

Whether God is timeless or not.. I wonder if it matters.

- Does he know what we will do before we act? A simple yes or no will do. We as humans have a past. Whether God is timeless or not, the truth is we aren't. If He's before time, then he came before us. Whether God starts, stops or resets time... it doesn't matter as we remain time-bound beings. If our future is present to him, our future still remains our future. You can't have it both ways. We still remain sequential beings. However omniscience with GOD, he knows before we act.. we can not violate his knowledge else he would not be omnsicient.

Simple.

Ihedinobi:

You did see the analogy with the writer and the book, did you not? Feel free to indicate where the writer "goes into the timeline of the book".

Ihedinobi:
The Bible doesn't? How so? God calls Himself I AM, Jesus is said to to be unaffected by the passage of time, He is the same yesterday, today and forever. God refers to Himself as the Start and Stop of Time, in other words, time is subject to His Will. But somehow your own reading of the Bible does not capture that? But there's little in that to be surprised about really. As dull as you are, any effort to read anything is actually laudable.

Ihedinobi:
Let's work with that then. I assume that in your analogy, the developer represents God and the game characters represent us. I understand also the "sequences" you spoke of to mean representations of time within the game reality, that is, the interpretation of realtime to the game charaacters.

That being so, is it your opinion that the developer is subject to those sequences the characters are subject to?

Ihedinobi:
In one single instant,

- I know that John is a medical doctor.

In the self-same instant,

- I know that he went to the university.

In the same instant,

- I know that he had classmates.

Now, can you draw my reasoning out in a diagram and show that it is linear?

Ihedinobi:
A christian is a child of God. That's the definition. Thus He has the same life that God does. If God cannot die, neither can the Christian. One cannot say at any point that his Christianity has died unless it was never there to begin with.

Ihedinobi:
However, look at it another way. A number of you claim to have acquired Christianity either as a heritage or as a culture or as a philosophy. Fine, but then, the question is, is Christianity a heritage, culture or philosophy? If it is those things, then of course you were Christians. If it isn't, then you were not.

Ihedinobi:
So we need to be sure what Christianity is. But whom do we ask? The origin of the concept, right? Yes, if we can find it, I think you'll manage to agree. Well, what is the origin? The Bible, not so? For all the trouble you may have with the Christian's Bible, it is to it that you owe the existence of the concept of Christianity, no?

And it says, "he that hath not the Spirit of Christ is none of his". Pretty simple, I think. If one does not have the Spirit of Christ, they're not a Christian, according to the Bible. If you say that the Bible is a lie, then you also say that there is no such thing as Christianity for you to have ever been one.
If you argue that Christians made up the Bible and thus made up the definition, "having the Spirit of Christ", then you are stating that such a thing is a lie, a falsehood and thus there are no such things as Christians. Again, that destroys your claim to having ever been a Christian.

Ihedinobi:

Well, it would matter if what is considered "before" by us is actually "at once".

Oh, and don't make me explain myself again. I won't. It's tiring and boring to say the same thing over and over again.

However, to help yet again, God knows our future because He is watching it happen as we experience it in the future. That is, He knows it not because He has seen it but because He is witnessing it unfold in the future. And it is happening "at the same time" for Him as our past and present are.

musKeeto:

So in essence, he knows not the exact choice we'll make?

Ihedinobi:

What does "will" mean to a being whose existence is independent of time?

striktlymi:

Yes, Sacred scriptures does not contain a complete knowledge about God. Quote me!

ooman:

I take it its revelation that gives complete knowledge then, delusions. bible is a failure then, am quoting you

inspiredbyGOD:.:
And the thread achieves nothing. Just as I expected.

ihedinobi: Is that right? I am certain that I have
already addressed this by pointing out designed systems run on set parameters. If those parameters alter, so will the output of such systems. Of course I say that because you will defend the above with appeals to the consequences of glitches in the systems, a tired routine that you are beating senseless with a stick.

ihedinobi: The very argument that I answered. If
God designed creation to continue producing new life forms,it will continue to do so after He has finished creating. Simples. Saying to me again that the Bible said He finished, finalized,
completed, bla bla bla EVERYTHING is tantamount to asking me to repeat myself yet again. Nothing in any of the language you've
used disallows God from finishing His work of creation and creation going on to operate as He designed it to, e.g. producing new life forms if he programmed it to do that.

ihedinobi: My friend, are you tired of debating?

ihedinobi: Again, a nonsense reply.

ihedinobi: Perhaps the lion's system was designed
like that, perhaps it wasn't. What I have no problem insisting on is that any failure in nature can be accounted for by man's break with God, not necessarily by God's poor design ability or wickedness. Until you can fault that argument, you waste your time saying things like the above.

ihedinobi: I don't normally do this and I doubt
that I have energy to spend like that, but this response here clearly calls all your show of science a lie and I would gladly
exhibit it as evidence of your quackery wherever I find you claiming some kind of scientific expertise. It is not only in engineering that systems control/control systems is studied in some form. Even in the biological sciences, we learn that changes in the operation of any given system or mechanism forces the system to shift to accommodate them thus altering the output. What's so hard to understand about that?

ihedinobi: And how is this reply not grasping at
straws and an effort to confuse issues?
The issue we're debating is if an intelligent designer cannot design a system he's creating to carry on forming, producing or "creating" new things after he's finished creating it.
Why do I need to shpw Scriptural evidence that God designed creation to go on producing new things after He
finished His work of creation? That's neither here nor there and is the reason I asked if you've grown tired of debating.

ihedinobi: Now it's obvious that you're unravelling.
What I submitted was an alternative
explanation for why there are
"mistakes", as you call them, in nature.
It is your unproven claim that God does
not exist.
You appeal to the existence of these
"mistakes" to say that God does not
exist and I have shown that they do not
nullify the argument for His existence.
Rather, they strengthen it.
So circling back to insist that God does
not exist is simplu singing "lalalalalala"
with your fingers stopping your ears.

ihedinobi: Well, if man was lord of the material
realms, then he was responsible to
administer them. Peehaps while he was
willingly God's minister for the earth, he
could have been learning to rule the
forces of nature and harness them to
God's purposes, but because he broke,
hwhat ability he may have had to rule
said forces may have deteriorated so
that now it may be imperceptible. Or
maybe hebroke with God before he had
completed his training in the mastery of
the material realms.
Whatever be the case, we know that
nature responds a great deal to man's
activities. How we use our land, water
and vegetation does, to some degree,
affect rainfall, in fact. That helps you,
I'm sure

ihedinobi: Ok, I get it. You have seen one thing
built from scratch and you have chosen
the dishonorable path to break your
word. smiley
It's ok. I was sure that you are
intolerant of honor, so I didn't quite
expect you to really accept the
argument for creation when I accepted
your challenge and produced the
species you demanded.

striktlymi:

Good day ooman,

Is it possible to have a logical conversation with one who does not know the meaning of "quote me"?

ihedinobi: Are you sure that it was my post you
meant to respond to here?

ihedinobi: Until I CLAIM (note that word, claim, I
bolded, italicized, underlined and
capitalized it just for you) that your
flying pig does not exist, I have nothing
to prove to you or anyone concerning its
inexistence. I can simply disbelieve you
and hold on to whatever private
conviction I have about it.
However, if I challenge you, then I must
produce arguments for my conviction.

ihedinobi: No, logic is a pretty nifty tool for me,
I've found. We get on rather well. You,
on the other hand, are a shame messing
with it. Because of you, iddiot logicboy
now has bragging rights, that there's
one person who has even more calcified
brains than he does.
Honestly could not compute how that
could be because lb is so dumb that his
brains seem to be completely made out
of bone. Perhaps, the difference is that
you've got bigger and denser brones
than he does.

ooman:

pls my dear boss, tell me the meaning

striktlymi:

*In your voice* Am I your teacher?

ooman:

enjoy this delusion why it last and tell me the meaning of "quote me"

Logicboy03:

lol.....and nobody told millions of people about Jesus.


Shows that religion is mostly what other people tell you.

striktlymi:

Do you really want to dwell on this? It's rather silly!

Anyone can see that you did not quote me but yet you want to go down this un-intellectual journey? You have a sharp brain and an active mind, don't allow them dwell on a matter so trivial...

wiegraf: Aha!

Not arguing for ooman. Barely read through the thread even (sadly, being an adult sucks), more like skimmed through.

wiegraf: And so long as he interacted with us, he would have no free will himself as well. As he must know about all his future actions pertaining to us as well, and go through with them.

wiegraf:
Now, the bolded bit makes no sense because....what free will? There wouldn't be any free will for god to interact with.

wiegraf:
The bolded, I must have missed that because you have not shown that, not at all. Please show me exactly where you do that.

striktlymi:
...it would be impractical for God to determine man's future without making man's decision for him.

Logicboy03:

lol....finally, Ihedinobi has broken down! Note that you had nothing to say other than to ask the most silly question ever. You are so ignorant not to realise that we measure time lapses all the time. Let's say that I stopped time and counted up to ten and then restarted time. The time lapse is ten seconds.

How was this your one-liner question enough as a repsonse to my whole paragraph? If my argument has defeated yuou why not shut up or ignore it and move on? Stop the foolish questions or one-liners when you are stumped.

Did I not explain how you reduced time into a timeline? Is this the new thing? Deny and anonynize? Here is the explanation again.

please, if you dont have anything to say stop denying simple facts in my comments, just move on.

How does this in anyway count as a reply to God consistently using time in the bible (6 period creationism, prophecies etc)? Or how does this count as a reply ton my paragraph?

WTF? The writer analogy is useless. I have pointed it out that the book has no world or no real characters just ink on paper.

Ad hominem smh

Guy, stop this denial. I have clearly explained why one can not have memories without time seeing that past and preceeding thoughts can not exist without time. Sequences can not exist without time and so does causality. I havce stressed that these are reason why it is senseless to be outside time.

Please if you have no arguments or reply, dont just claim nonsense. My explanations are in defense of my claims not your questions (which question did you even ask on being outside time that was left unanswered?).

See this guy. The bible never says that God is outside time. "Jesus is the same, yesterday, today and forever" is quite metaphorical. Literally, Jesus aged. He grew old. Jesus was inside time. Clearly, it was referring to his "goodness" and "holiness" that remained the same. Funny how you bible pushers shout "context" and cant even get the right context.

God said that he is the beginning and the end in the bible. That clearly means that he is subject to time. There is no beginning and end without time.

The bible never clearly says that God is outside time. Never. God created the world in six periods, he made prophecies, he made sequential convenants, he punished future generations...etc....consistenly using time in the bible.

Please, keep denying the obvious.

You have yet to explain how something can exist outside time because nothing so far in science or this universe can do that. For you to even claim that my statements that God cant exist outside time is laughable, you must be really insane. Science is on my side. Basic logic is on my side. Existence is based on time. How the hell can you even type the nonsense you are typing and claim that I am typing nonsense?

Guy, you need to stop debating nonsense.

Yawn,

1) Like I earlier said the game world is fictional, and as a result, such analogies (including your failed writer) are useless.

2) Both the developer and game character are contrained by time. Coding is sequential....both of them are affected by the sequential coding of the game. The developer must put his codes in sequence and the character must obey the coding.

Knowing is not the same as reasoning. I could know all these things at once by glancing at john's lifetime pictures.

Reasoning, on the other hand will always be sequential. I know that John did all these things but if i wanted to explain it os someone or put it on paper, it would come out sequentially as I would explain either from past to present or deductively from present to past.

Knowing is different from reasoning. This simple fact shows how you like to anonynize. Your reply to me was useless. How is modal logic never linear? How is reasoning never linear? Mtchew.

Who are you to redefine christianity? Anyone that goes to church or reads the bible and claims to follow christ is a christian. End of story.

There is no one definition of christianity. I would like to know on which authority you have ton define a christian. Why should I take your definition over the catholic church or the baptist church? Who are you?

You are becoming as irritating as Goshen. The pompous preacher. Just rememeber how he fell from grace in the fornication thread. He thought that he was the one true interpreter of the bible and all would follow him like sheep.

Your interpretation is just another opinion.

Christians become atheists. It happens. leave it at that.

I am not going to argue with your stu.pidity. Simple philosophy and logic tells you that omniscience can not exist with freewill.

You can take it or leave it. Fact will remain true despite your ignorance. I doubt that Anony would argue against such an argument that has backing of both logic and evidence. If even you dont believe me, how could you then argue with 2 different encyclopedias of philosophy, a topic in philosophy and basic common sense that all show thsat freewill and omniscience can not exist?

striktlymi: Good afternoon wiegraf,

Finally found my binoculars



Okay, cool!




C'mon wieg, since when has interaction prevented another from acting freely? I understand that the same argument you adopted in your attempt to show that man is not free if God is omniscient is what you want to make God subject to. But I already pointed out severally that having perfect knowledge of the future has nothing to do with interfering with the free will of anyone.

Let's use this very loose example...TBJ (the man who saw tomorrow ...I can't even hold myself from laughing) prophesied that something devastating would happen to America and all should pray on a Monday (though we know not which of the Mondays) for America in order for what he saw not to happen...He believes that God revealed what will happen if the necessary precautions are not taking...

Now the assumption is that people like me took this prophecy with a bowl of salt (as I would do any other of his prophecies)...sadly, the event he warned about took place and he might feel vindicated...but the question now is, assuming he does have the gift to see well into the future does this mean that he caused the bombing in America by just knowing about it?

Yes, I know the example is very weak and TBJ is not omnipotent and the rest of the "omnis" but the point still remains...an ability to foresee the future is not the same as an ability to determine what the future holds which in turn implies that seeing the future does not negate the free will of man in the least.



Well, Oga wieg, I believe it makes sense because unless you are able to show that interaction necessarily denies freewill, my initial comment on the matter still stands.



This is the the bit of my comment you asked me to demonstrate:



When you say man's future is determined, you mean that someone or something is responsible for the decisions man ultimately makes. Which necessarily implies that the freewill of man is tampered with...

Now, your argument for a determined future stems from our belief that God is omniscient...which implies that he knows even what will happen in our future. I have demonstrated that a future that is known does not imply that the future has been determined...the imperfect example of TBJ I gave shows this...may be not so clearly.

God is omnipresent...(I guess this is another term you would find impossible to grapple with) but it is my belief that he is everywhere which includes my past, present and future...since he has this unique ability, I see clearly how he can see a future without that future being determined...

Yes I understand why you won't see what I see...

Now coming to the evidence you requested for, the sad reality is that I can't provide you with the evidence you desire because I have one thing you seem not to have as regards this matter...FAITH!!! Omnipresence explains why the future is not determined and for any future to be determined, we need to demonstrate that the future has been manipulated by anyone or anything.

I believe this should mark the end of the discussion because it has gone out of the sphere of logic and to the realm of FAITH!!!

Hmmmm...

Really I do understand your argument and I believe as regards to pure logic without knowing any better, they make sense but I know better and that is where the difference is wieg...

ooman:

Once again i ask, if the parameters fail, is it the fault of the designed system or the fault of the designer. Logic seem to be too much for you.

Well, you conflict the bible here. Your idea of god is created in your own head and your idea of god fails because the same way new life forms are evolving right now is the same way the very first life forms evolved and so, if nature lacks your god right now and even more complex beautifully superficiality designed systems are appearing anew, that is just a relic that it has always lacked a designer.

Now is when nature contains the most complex system and if it can self coordinate and originate those systems now, there is no doubt it can self originate even simpler compartments, combinations of which produced more complex systems existing presently, rendering the idea of a once upon a time designer god useless, my dear dullard Ihedinobi.

Duh!! We are talking about a living god here who wrote a book and who speaks to you, probability is not an answer for such except if your own faith is based on probability, Don Iddiot-in your own words.

A fool's evasion of truth.

What sort of a god subjects his creations to extinction? Such intelligence is too dull to exist.

Fault what exactly, a baseless, senseless ancient position? You would notice i ve been avoiding it, its not worth my energy.

Man ate a fruit and suddenly, lions started eating meat and snakes started producing venoms! Pls kill such dumb logic.

I hope you dont believe pigs can fly too! Its surprising what nonsense position you are presenting to me whats more surprising is that you believe it to be true.

Lord dumb, how exactly does the above answer the question-if a system is faulty, who do you blame? The system or the designer?

Dont be a waste of time.

Evasion for lack of answer. You dont need the whole epistle above to substantiate your claim. We all know your own god is in your head. The bible god finished making everything and he ordered they must "produce after their kind " and here you are claim he said they "may produce other kinds "so pls substatiate your claims.

Delusions. Presence of mistakes disprove an highly infallible, perfect, omnipotent god.

Does mistakes and perfection blend, does fallibility and infallible blend? How can a god be perfect and at the same time make mistakes?

Duh, you are a pain in a dog's azz.

How exactly does eating a fruit affect the amount of rainfall or cause lions to be carnivorous suddenly is the question. Stop prevaricating.

How exactly does one man's action of eating a fruit make everything fall into sh1t and cause disorder?

Sorry i missed the species, pls provide it again, my dear liar!! .

ooman:

Duh

I also have shared my view of the existence of god. I challenged god not you, so why are you replying.?

There is a reason for everything. If i ask whether you believe in my flying pig and you say no, then burden of proof comes on you. So, do you belie in my flying pig?

Besides, i dont go about, preaching my flying pig, i dont force it down your throat like you dumb religious do, because whenever i did that, then, you will be forced to speak as atheists ate this day.

So when next you see an atheist thread, let your brain be sharp enough to ignore because once you join a discussion, then you are making a CLAIM my dear dumb oaf.

and you said this, why??

Only fools know fools. I know better than to say anymore to the above comment, presumably made by a human

musKeeto:
Lol. The timeline is bound to the Writer. He can decide to set in 1982bc or 2000 pre-BIGbang. Everything that happens within the timeline of the book is as told by the writer.. a crude analogy, if you ask me..

You've still failed to show how GOD not being subject to time stops him from having a before or after. As far as I'm concerned, you might as well be talking about the universe..

Of course the developer isn't. But he determines what roles the characters play. Take Fifa for example. If a player hits a penalty, if the opposition is controlled by AI, he dives to the left or to right, based on codes created by the developer. So nothing should come as a surprise to the developer.

And what purpose is this supposed to serve?

If God cannot die, neither can the Christian? Pls.. where did you get this conclusion from?

Lol, the numerous threads on this forum that have been raised to define the identity of a 'Christian' have only amounted to exercises in futility. But whatever rocks your boat... Just don't expect anyone to take you serious...

lol... I was once crazy, now I'm healed. What I believed in while I was crazy was 'real' at the time, but they were lies..

In fact, like your fellow brothers, we may agree that there's no such thing as true 'Christianity'. All we have is major SPAGGING. The only common doctrine Christians share is a love for 'JESUS CHRIST'.. Beyond that, there's little they agree upon whether it be his divinity, trinity, doctrines etc... So yeah, the only true Christian if there ever was was Christ. The rest of you are just impostors.

davidylan: unbelievable that the same cast of characters are still at it?? Una no dey tire?

musKeeto:
WE - will..

not HE - will...

Oh boy are we talking about the universe here or not?

If our future is HIS present, the fact remains that it's still our future. Simple..
Like a movie, the character dies at the end.. if you rewind to the beginning, he's still alive. That's because the writer made it so. At any particular point within the movie-- let's say the beginning for example--, it matters not if he 'dies' at the end, he (according to the storyline) would still be alive.

I've enough time on my hands. I want to see how your 'timeless God' plays out..

davidylan: unbelievable that the same cast of characters are still at it?? Una no dey tire?

musKeeto: @Ihe: does God know what choice we will make before we make them?

Last word.

Ihedinobi:

Yes and no.

Ishilove:
My brother, d tin taya me sef. I don unfollow the thread tey tey

ihedinobi: Well, let's see just how sensible this
question of yours is, shall we?
General Motors designs an automobile
that is a great transportation machine
and a "responsible" one. The car won't
let you drive it if you're drunk. You have
to exhale on the key and wait for the
computee to decide that you don't have
too much alcohol in your system to
drive.
A high school kid crashes the car and
barely survives the experience. It is later
found that he'd driven it under the
influence. How was that possible?
Apparently, the kid is a genius with
computers and hacked the car's
computer to let him drive under the
influence which was why he crashed.
Whose fault is it that the operating
conditions altered? The car's (that is,
the system's) or GM's (the designer's)?
What were the operating conditions GM
designed for? And what were the
conditions that obtained for the crash?
Are they the same?

ihedinobi: For instance, what have you said here
that has anything to do with the fact
that if a designer created a system.to
continue producing new things after he
has created it, it should do so?

ihedinobi: And at what point did we start talking
about probability?

ihedinobi: What I care is that you still haven't
shown what is wrong with my
explanation for how theycan both exist
at the same time?

ihedinobi: In other words, the existence of these
"mistakes" of yours in nature does not
necessarily disprove the existence of a
perfect designer. In fact, it helps explain
him.

ihedinobi: The first thing, according to the theory
of evolution, from which everything else
evolved.