musKeeto:

oh boy, everybody na goalkeeper, midfielder. Even when person score goal, dem go say the ball dey offside... Hahah

striktlymi: Good morning ooman,

Pardon me but I couldn't hold back, I just had to laugh really hard...your response is a bit below the standards you have set for yourself. Let's take a cursory look at your response...shall we?

You mean you lack basic understanding of what mutual exclusion means and that freewill and omniscience are mutually exlusive??

striktlymi: First of, I fail to see how I defiled the 'bedroom' of logic by commenting before reading the OP despite the fact that I made the following comments:

God or its idea, one of it is controlling your life. Such delusion is the fraud here, which you are too blindly involved in to realise.

striktlymi: The above renders your accusations false! My comment above demonstrated that I did not just post without a thought on the matter.

Commenting before reading the OP shows a great level mediocrity. Something not to be expected from someone like you no matter your excuse. First i was disappointed and wouldnt reply this post, now i think i should because i never expected better from the religious anyway.

striktlymi: 'Evading the truth' pretty much sums up the meaning of the word. But what truth is there to evade and how have I evaded it? Let's put your 'defense' to the test:

The above defense is quite lame really cause I never denied the above nor try to evade it. The above is true for all time! God knows all that was, is, and is to come; this I say without mincing words.

God is indeed omniscient, knows what will be, which must be for his omniscience to remain valid, which therefore destroys freewill - this is the truth you continue to evade.

What is lame is your denial of obvious facts

striktlymi: You know I hate repeating myself Anyways, for the avoidance of doubt see my response below:

Note that in Revelation 17:17, all we have is a situation whereby God is 'guilty as charged' for given man freewill. Everything we do on Earth without being forced is done from the 'will' and this 'will' is given to us by God. Whatever we decide to do with this God given 'will' (whether good or bad) is entirely up-to us. The passage again:

Revelation 17:17
Good News Translation (GNT)
17 For God has placed in their hearts the will to carry out his purpose by acting together and giving to the beast their power to rule until God's words come true.

The 'will' to choose right from wrong has been given to us. If we choose to do wrong, it does not take away the fact that God is the one who gave us that 'will' as enumerated in that passage of sacred scriptures. The bottom line is: there is freedom of choice.

Still you willingly choose to not understand the contention here.
No one is saying God forces us to choose a particular thing here. And that is exactly the fraud - you think you are making a decision, God already knows the decision, therefore, for God to remain omniscient, you must make the decision God knows of, when not, God's vision of the future has failed. Such failure will never be attributed to God because according to the religious, God cannot fail. In order for God's perfect status to remain valid, every man must choose that which God sees, that is where freewill becomes nullified. And the freewill which every man thinks he has on earth becomes only a lie, a fraud. Hope you understand now.

striktlymi: It is true that God always have a plan for every man and that God knows what will happen next but very false and inaccurate to say that God determines the actions of man. I have explained why some part of sacred scriptures seem to suggest that God determines our actions so I won't go into this.

Your explanations denies simple logic.

When you say 'seem', what exactly are you suggesting. That the bible cannot be taken for its words. Well, i know that already. The bible contains crude thoughts of the ancients.

striktlymi: Point of correction...not every plan of God comes to fulfillment. If you read through John 2:4-10 you would see one of such cases. God has a plan for when Christ would start his public ministry but this plan did not come to pass as he started his ministry before the appointed time due to a request from his Mother. Verse 4 of that chapter reads:

John 2:4
Good News Translation (GNT)
The Wedding in Cana

4 “You must not tell me what to do,” Jesus replied. “My time has not yet come.”

Ok, by this, are you suggesting that God did not know that Jesus would start his ministry a little earlier than planned?
Are you suggesting that God isnt absolutely omniscient? Because according to the definition of omniscient, God must have known that Jesus would start earlier than they both planned, therefore, this example is irrelevant to this discussion and it is baseless and useless. Another prevarication.

striktlymi: Another baseless accusations!

Another denial

striktlymi: You have actually shown little or nothing!

You have denied every logic.

striktlymi: I agree with the above. Indeed man's freewill and God's omniscience are exclusive. They both co-exist without conflict. I have already demonstrated this in my first response so no need going through it again.

Ok, what is the problem here? you dont know what mutual exclusion means or what? freewill and omniscience cannot co exist. That is the essence of this thread. This fact is pretty obvious but i understand why you deny this though.

If God's aforeknowledge is to remain absolute, then every must happen according to how he knew it, this erases freewill because everything MUST occur according to god's aforeknowledge. This is what i have been trying to tell you which you willing prefer to ignore and give analogy of father and son. What you failed to realize is that all your analogies never include an omniscient, omnipotent, absolute and perfect God.

striktlymi: Oh, now I see where the ish is coming from. God knows everything i.e he has perfect knowledge and I agree that for one to be omniscient, everything must happen according to his knowledge but this is not the same as influencing everything to happen in that way. Knowing about something before it happens is different from making that thing happen in accordance with your knowledge.

and no one is saying that it is god that makes decisions for people which is infact the fraud here and which is what you just agreed to. Because god knows what will happen next, then it must happen or else god's vision is a lie. Now, the freewill of the person involved does not matter, what he must choose is what the omniscient being already knows. This is where freewill becomes nullified, hope you understand now as you have claimed.

striktlymi: Interesting thought but they are just your thoughts and do not constitute proof. I have demonstrated repeatedly that one can be omniscient without infringing on another's right to freedom of thoughts and actions.

all your demonstrations shows complete lack of understanding of the main topic of mutual exclusion of freewill and omniscience. Instead of attacking the main points, you attacked the fact that it is not god that makes decision for us, but that is not the point here, it is that since god already knows what a man would choose at a particular time, and since he is perfect and infallible, then the man must choose that option or else, god's afore vision is false. Once again, this is where freewill becomes negated and God making you thnk you still have freewill is the fraud.

striktlymi: This is very funny! How does this prove the existence or non-existence of God? The only way you can demonstrate that God does not exist with this gimmick is by showing that there exist a conflict between man's free will and God's omniscient. I have demonstrated, almost needlessly, that this is not the case.

Once again, your demonstrations are all prevarication. freewill and omniscience are mutually exclusive. Only one can exist, what we know to exist is freewill, never omniscience, therefore, presence of freewill destroys god, or at least an omniscient god.

striktlymi: You really are a piece of work You mean, knowing what will happen is the same as making it happen? Check out your logic:

Striktlymi is the man who saw tomorrow...

Striktlymi knew that the world trade centre would be blown up...

Striktlymi therefore blew up the world trade centre...

Does that make any sense? If you accuse me of withholding sensitive information, then I will be guilty as charged but to accuse me of making the bombers perform the act is very incorrect. ooman abeg your logic is more than this...use it!!!

i never made such claims that it is god who make decisions for people BUT that people must make decisions as already known by god, freewill therefore becomes nullified. what is so hard to understand in that?

striktlymi: Knowledge of something is different from making someone do what you know!

and that is the fraud here. in the case of god, people must do what he knows or he is not perfect, absolute, omnipotent anymore. Stop equating real, existing people with an hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god, man is not perfect.

striktlymi: I have sent that argument to the 'recycle bin'!

what you have done is evade the truth of the matter and argue as it favors you.

striktlymi: Guy, I understand your argument but it is very flawed. The fact that an omniscient being has perfect knowledge does not undermine the choices Jack decides to make. Jack has the option of choosing A, Choosing another option apart from A, and not choosing any option at all.

if Jack chooses another option than that the omniscient being knows, the he is not omniscient anymore.

striktlymi: God knows the options Jack has to make, the dilemma he might face in making the decision and the final decision he comes up with. This knowledge God has does not stop Jack from choosing what he wants. Remember that there is the option of not going with anything if he so desires just like one can decide to stop making choices by taking his own life.

There is always the choice to choose and that choice comes from one's freewill.

any deviation from what god already knows denies him his omniscience

striktlymi: Nope!!!







Hmmm...



I did not ignore any point!

that is everything you have done, ignore the main point and argue as it favors you.

striktlymi: Laughable!!! If you have a kid and the child decides to destroy your television knowingly and with intent...you knew about this and decided to act like you are not in the know when you asked your child...does this sound like anything out of the ordinary? Is it wrong to do this? Anyways, no one's freewill was affected by this.

striktlymi: Knowing something is different from making someone do what you know!

in the case of god, people must do what he knows or he is not perfect, absolute, omnipotent anymore. Stop equating real, existing people with an hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god.

striktlymi: Since when has making a reference to something else to demonstrate a point turned to an evasion of the truth?

Not theirs? May be the decision was yours then



I have put the above accusations to rest...no need explaining again.

If you 'punish' that child for the damage he caused, would that be inappropriate just because you acted as if you did not know? . That means every under cover operation of the police should be rendered invalid because they pretend not to know what they know.

you have done absolutely nothing. In the case of god, people must do what he knows or he is not perfect, absolute, omnipotent anymore. Stop equating real, existing people with an hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god.

striktlymi: For your mind o!



Prove it na!

done that times without number

striktlymi: The substance of your substantiation needs to be substantiated cause it is highly unsubstantial



I have demonstrated why that claim is wrong!



This is it:

om·nis·cient [om-nish-uhnt]
adjective
1. having complete or unlimited knowledge, awareness, or understanding; perceiving all things.
noun
2. an omniscient being.
3. the Omniscient, God.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/omniscient

Now show us which part of the definition of omniscient says one has to be able to impair someone's ability to decide in order to be omniscient.

which is why god is a fraud!

striktlymi: Jesus actually prayed for all his disciples John 17:6-26

so what happened, why did one still fall to the devil. prayer obviously does not work.

striktlymi: You have substantiated nothing!

you have to stop using another topic entirely to explain your failed logic.

Freewill and Omniscience remains mutually exclusive and god remains a fraud.

Ooman, you try!

Ihedinobi is th worst person to have a debate with. At least, striklymi has the decency to run away when he knows that he has been thoroughly debunked. Ihedinobi will start switching topics, throwing useless analogies and denying obbvious truths so much that it ends up being a merry go round

Example


Atheist: there is a logical contradiction between omniscience and freewill. There is even a whole topuc on it in philosophy. Even somechristians recognoze the problem.
Ihedinobi: lol you belive that there is a contradiction between omniscience and freewillbecause some christians belive so?

Ooman: the bible is wrong because it says that no onebknows the depth of the earth while we know whats at the core of the earth
Ihedinobi: lol....what does the depth of the earth have to do with its core?

(note that the core of the earth is the deepest part of the planet)

^^^the guy is quite funny

musKeeto:

It's funny though. You claim Christianity is not a religion, yet feel a need to defend ooman's statement here..

what exactly is my statement??

ooman:

what exactly is my statement??

That religion inhibits curiosity.

If Chrisitanity isn't a religion, he would have ignored that.

ooman:

that is called primary structure, as determined by DNA templates.

Science knowledge of people in nairaland is very low. I understand why you all languish in religion.

My friend, the number of times you claim to be scientific is not gonna make you scientific. It's just gonna make you sound something like an iddiot who's trying to avoid difficult questions by pretending to be smart.

So, these primary constructs are evidence that proteins were not designed to fold peculiarly, are they?

Do you realize that the existence of such primary constructs can still be due to a designer who intendes proteins to fold in one way alone and not others? Their existence does not nullify the argument for the existence of an intelligent designer, in fact, it helps.

do we really have to go cycle. Mutations prove lack of ID'ner. how many times will i tell you that.
by the bold do you mean science is too much for you? then you and i cannot have this discussion.

Keep sayin' it, man. If you shout it maybe a few million more times, you can manage to make it true. My friend, the question was how does mutation prove such a thing? I don't need to hear that it does again.

And, no, the bolded means nothing of the sort, but pseudoscience-drunk who see in just the one color would understand it like that. Well, I'll spell it out for you.

I am convinced that you use highfalutin speech to try and obscure your inability to address arguments that you do not quite grasp. So I would rather you answered without hiding behind obscure scientific jargon. Think you can try that? In fact, I dare you to do that.

dang, you are quite low intellectually to connect that spontaneity and randomness means that intelligence does not control nature but such process as mutations?

call your father in intelligence davidylan, perhaps then, we will make some progress.

Honestly, the above made no sense to me at all. I don't see the relationship between what you said here and the question I asked at all.

never mind, i made a grave mistake thinking that what you argue are within your ken. what is there to explain in that??

Did you mean that a species' genome has to be built from scratch in a lab first before you consider creation and intelligent design proven?

When ever someone with some level of intelligence comes around, i will resume this argument.

Intelligence! It's grand that you can spell the word at all

ooman:

You mean you lack basic understanding of what mutual exclusion means and that freewill and omniscience are mutually exlusive??

God or its idea, one of it is controlling your life. Such delusion is the fraud here, which you are too blindly involved in to realise.

Commenting before reading the OP shows a great level mediocrity. Something not to be expected from someone like you no matter your excuse. First i was disappointed and wouldnt reply this post, now i think i should because i never expected better from the religious anyway.

The above is a typical example of sacrificing so many words at the expense of meaning.

ooman:
God is indeed omniscient, knows what will be,

The above is spot on!

ooman:
which must be for his omniscience to remain valid,

The above depends on your use of the word must. If by 'must' you mean that an individual's past at some point becomes his future which the omniscient being knew before it occurred then I will agree with you but if on the contrary you mean that our futures have been predetermined, then my good man, you are very wrong!

ooman:
which therefore destroys freewill - this is the truth you continue to evade.

There is no evasion of the truth here...freewill and omniscient do not conflict in any way. I have looked at it from your view point and seen why it seem to contradict but this really is not the appropriate way to see it.

The argument you guys put forth is that for a being to be omniscient, it has to demonstrate an ability to see a future that from his present time till when the future becomes a past, there should be no way of changing that future by any one, suggesting that the future is fixed at any time (t). Hence a deviation from such a future would ultimately render the omniscience of this being invalid.

In order words, your argument is that omniscience suggests a predetermined future which in effect implies that man's freewill is null and void. This way of looking at omniscient and freewill makes a whole lot of sense but it is incorrect.

For the postulation above to be valid, one would need to demonstrate that omniscience necessarily means that the actions of another is guided by some force to a predetermined end i.e. we need to prove that omniscience means or implies a denial of one's right to make a choice.

As I have enumerated previously, omniscience has nothing to do with making or impeding on the ability of an individual to make his own decisions. It is only saying that the decisions people make is already known before it is made...even changing one's mind is a decision that has already been known by the omniscient one and not that our decisions have been made for us already.

ooman:
What is lame is your denial of obvious facts

It is lame to say one denies 'obvious facts' without proving it.

ooman:
Still you willingly choose to not understand the contention here.

Sorry guy, but it seems I understand your position more than you think.

ooman:
No one is saying God forces us to choose a particular thing here.

If you say God does not force anyone to choose, then there goes the 'spinal chord' of your entire argument.

ooman:
And that is exactly the fraud - you think you are making a decision, God already knows the decision, therefore, for God to remain omniscient, you must make the decision God knows of, when not, God's vision of the future has failed.

Now ooman, work with me here...does the above make much sense? We must make the decision God has designed for us for his omniscient to remain valid, we only have an illusion of freewill and yet you say that God does not force us to choose?

Man is free to make his own choices and the omniscient one is free to know what man's future choices will be. There is no contradiction here...I gave you the example of the 9/11 bombings but it seems you did not ponder on this...

If I saw the future and know for a fact that the bombings will occur, does it mean that I predetermined that event? Or that I influenced the decisions of those bombers? The answers are in the negative...the bombers decided to carry out their dastardly act of their own freewill and I happen to know what they will do not that I made them do it.

ooman:
Such failure will never be attributed to God because according to the religious, God cannot fail.

Actually, it depends on your context of the use of 'failure'.

ooman:
In order for God's perfect status to remain valid, every man must choose that which God sees, that is where freewill becomes nullified. And the freewill which every man thinks he has on earth becomes only a lie, a fraud. Hope you understand now.

You still miss the point. Man is not made to choose what God sees...God knows the choices man will freely make. These are two different things and I wonder why it's so difficult for you to notice the difference. Seeing the future is different from making someone do what I see.

The future is known but the event leading to this knowledge is done freely by the person involved.

ooman:
Your explanations denies simple logic.

Why not embarrass me by showing (proving) how my explanation 'defiles the bedroom' of logic?

ooman:
When you say 'seem', what exactly are you suggesting. That the bible cannot be taken for its words. Well, i know that already. The bible contains crude thoughts of the ancients.

I am suggesting your lack of knowledge of Sacred scriptures.

ooman:
Ok, by this, are you suggesting that God did not know that Jesus would start his ministry a little earlier than planned?
Are you suggesting that God isnt absolutely omniscient? Because according to the definition of omniscient, God must have known that Jesus would start earlier than they both planned, therefore, this example is irrelevant to this discussion and it is baseless and useless. Another prevarication.

That is meant to show you the difference between God's plans and the freedom we have to choose something else apart from the plan God has for us but it does not mean that he is unaware of the change.

ooman:
Another denial

I should be used to this by now...accusations without basis.

ooman:
You have denied every logic.

...and it is logical to say the above without proof?

ooman:
Ok, what is the problem here? you dont know what mutual exclusion means or what?

I am beginning to think that you apply some theories without knowing what they mean. Are we going to argue about mutual exclusion?

ooman:
freewill and omniscience cannot co exist. That is the essence of this thread. This fact is pretty obvious but i understand why you deny this though.

The above has been thrashed a number of times.

ooman:
If God's aforeknowledge is to remain absolute, then every must happen according to how he knew it, this erases freewill

Do you even know what freewill is? You are becoming suspicious o For the avoidance of doubt, freewill can mean Voluntary choice or decision which has not been predetermined by anyone. Unless you can show that seeing someone's future is the same as stopping the person from making a decision freely then your arguments translates to nothing.

ooman:
because everything MUST occur according to god's aforeknowledge. This is what i have been trying to tell you which you willing prefer to ignore and give analogy of father and son. What you failed to realize is that all your analogies never include an omniscient, omnipotent, absolute and perfect God.

Thrashed!!!

ooman:
and no one is saying that it is god that makes decisions for people which is infact the fraud here and which is what you just agreed to. Because god knows what will happen next, then it must happen or else god's vision is a lie. Now, the freewill of the person involved does not matter, what he must choose is what the omniscient being already knows. This is where freewill becomes nullified, hope you understand now as you have claimed.

Need I explain what I agreed to? I think not! It will be a waste of time!

ooman:
all your demonstrations shows complete lack of understanding of the main topic of mutual exclusion of freewill and omniscience. Instead of attacking the main points, you attacked the fact that it is not god that makes decision for us, but that is not the point here, it is that since god already knows what a man would choose at a particular time, and since he is perfect and infallible, then the man must choose that option or else, god's afore vision is false. Once again, this is where freewill becomes negated and God making you thnk you still have freewill is the fraud.

Thrashed!!!

ooman:
Once again, your demonstrations are all prevarication. freewill and omniscience are mutually exclusive. Only one can exist, what we know to exist is freewill, never omniscience, therefore, presence of freewill destroys god, or at least an omniscient god.

May be this would help your understanding of mutually exclusive: Independence!

ooman:
i never made such claims that it is god who make decisions for people BUT that people must make decisions as already known by god, freewill therefore becomes nullified. what is so hard to understand in that?

Did you even read the above? I know your future actions means you no longer have freewill? What logic!!!

ooman:
and that is the fraud here. in the case of god, people must do what he knows or he is not perfect, absolute, omnipotent anymore. Stop equating real, existing people with an hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god, man is not perfect.

You still fail to show that when someone's future is known, his ability to decide is taken away from him. Question: If God does not force man to decide and man does not decide, who then makes the decision?

ooman:
what you have done is evade the truth of the matter and argue as it favors you.

I laugh!!!

ooman:
if Jack chooses another option than that the omniscient being knows, the he is not omniscient anymore.

any deviation from what god already knows denies him his omniscience

Thrashed!!!

ooman:
that is everything you have done, ignore the main point and argue as it favors you.

in the case of god, people must do what he knows or he is not perfect, absolute, omnipotent anymore. Stop equating real, existing people with an hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god.

Thrashed!!!

ooman:
you have done absolutely nothing. In the case of god, people must do what he knows or he is not perfect, absolute, omnipotent anymore. Stop equating real, existing people with an hypothetical omniscient, omnipotent, perfect god.






done that times without number







which is why god is a fraud!





so what happened, why did one still fall to the devil. prayer obviously does not work.





you have to stop using another topic entirely to explain your failed logic.

Freewill and Omniscience remains mutually exclusive and god remains a fraud.

I don vex!!! See as you make me miss Ba's goal!!!

Logicboy03: Ooman, you try!

Ihedinobi is th worst person to have a debate with. At least, striklymi has the decency to run away when he knows that he has been thoroughly debunked. Ihedinobi will start switching topics, throwing useless analogies and denying obbvious truths so much that it ends up being a merry go round

Example


Atheist: there is a logical contradiction between omniscience and freewill. There is even a whole topuc on it in philosophy. Even somechristians recognoze the problem.
Ihedinobi: lol you belive that there is a contradiction between omniscience and freewillbecause some christians belive so?

Ooman: the bible is wrong because it says that no onebknows the depth of the earth while we know whats at the core of the earth
Ihedinobi: lol....what does the depth of the earth have to do with its core?

(note that the core of the earth is the deepest part of the planet)

I didn't know your sojourn on the sugar candy mountain made you adopt the 'lying tac'.

musKeeto:
That religion inhibits curiosity.

If Chrisitanity isn't a religion, he would have ignored that.

yes I said that and he defended it.

Ihedinobi:

My friend, the number of times you claim to be scientific is not gonna make you scientific. It's just gonna make you sound something like an iddiot who's trying to avoid difficult questions by pretending to be smart.

So, these primary constructs are evidence that proteins were not designed to fold peculiarly, are they?

Do you realize that the existence of such primary constructs can still be due to a designer who intendes proteins to fold in one way alone and not others? Their existence does not nullify the argument for the existence of an intelligent designer, in fact, it helps.



Keep sayin' it, man. If you shout it maybe a few million more times, you can manage to make it true. My friend, the question was how does mutation prove such a thing? I don't need to hear that it does again.

And, no, the bolded means nothing of the sort, but pseudoscience-drunk who see in just the one color would understand it like that. Well, I'll spell it out for you.

I am convinced that you use highfalutin speech to try and obscure your inability to address arguments that you do not quite grasp. So I would rather you answered without hiding behind obscure scientific jargon. Think you can try that? In fact, I dare you to do that.



Honestly, the above made no sense to me at all. I don't see the relationship between what you said here and the question I asked at all.



Did you mean that a species' genome has to be built from scratch in a lab first before you consider creation and intelligent design proven?



Intelligence! It's grand that you can spell the word at all

your response betray your level of understanding of what you continue to argue. to begin with, what is the primary structure of proteins and how many structures do we have? feel free to google, your responses will betray you later.
proper understanding of protein folding will tell you that it occurs spontaneously without ID'ner's interference. Its misfolding also proves absence of an IDner at each folding.

because mutations that hurts life forms and children occur, an intelligent designer couldn't be present and still allow for T21 and other genetic diseases except this IDner is really evil. You know, if the devil is your god, there is a great evidence for him but there is no single evidence for a good god.

why would i mean in the lab? why take the easy way out? Provide me with a single species in nature, among the recently documented ones for verification, whose genome is known to be built from scratch, then creation will become science.

hope your low intellect can grasp these now.

striktlymi:

The above is a typical example of sacrificing so many words at the expense of meaning.



The above is spot on!



The above depends on your use of the word must. If by 'must' you mean that an individual's past at some point becomes his future which the omniscient being knew before it occurred then I will agree with you but if on the contrary you mean that our futures have been predetermined, then my good man, you are very wrong!



There is no evasion of the truth here...freewill and omniscient do not conflict in any way. I have looked at it from your view point and seen why it seem to contradict but this really is not the appropriate way to see it.

The argument you guys put forth is that for a being to be omniscient, it has to demonstrate an ability to see a future that from his present time till when the future becomes a past, there should be no way of changing that future by any one, suggesting that the future is fixed at any time (t). Hence a deviation from such a future would ultimately render the omniscience of this being invalid.

In order words, your argument is that omniscience suggests a predetermined future which in effect implies that man's freewill is null and void. This way of looking at omniscient and freewill makes a whole lot of sense but it is incorrect.

For the postulation above to be valid, one would need to demonstrate that omniscience necessarily means that the actions of another is guided by some force to a predetermined end i.e. we need to prove that omniscience means or implies a denial of one's right to make a choice.

As I have enumerated previously, omniscience has nothing to do with making or impeding on the ability of an individual to make his own decisions. It is only saying that the decisions people make is already known before it is made...even changing one's mind is a decision that has already been known by the omniscient one and not that our decisions have been made for us already.



It is lame to say one denies 'obvious facts' without proving it.



Sorry guy, but it seems I understand your position more than you think.



If you say God does not force anyone to choose, then there goes the 'spinal chord' of your entire argument.



Now ooman, work with me here...does the above make much sense? We must make the decision God has designed for us for his omniscient to remain valid, we only have an illusion of freewill and yet you say that God does not force us to choose?

Man is free to make his own choices and the omniscient one is free to know what man's future choices will be. There is no contradiction here...I gave you the example of the 9/11 bombings but it seems you did not ponder on this...

If I saw the future and know for a fact that the bombings will occur, does it mean that I predetermined that event? Or that I influenced the decisions of those bombers? The answers are in the negative...the bombers decided to carry out their dastardly act of their own freewill and I happen to know what they will do not that I made them do it.



Actually, it depends on your context of the use of 'failure'.



You still miss the point. Man is not made to choose what God sees...God knows the choices man will freely make. These are two different things and I wonder why it's so difficult for you to notice the difference. Seeing the future is different from making someone do what I see.

The future is known but the event leading to this knowledge is done freely by the person involved.



Why not embarrass me by showing (proving) how my explanation 'defiles the bedroom' of logic?



I am suggesting your lack of knowledge of Sacred scriptures.



That is meant to show you the difference between God's plans and the freedom we have to choose something else apart from the plan God has for us but it does not mean that he is unaware of the change.



I should be used to this by now...accusations without basis.



...and it is logical to say the above without proof?




I am beginning to think that you apply some theories without knowing what they mean. Are we going to argue about mutual exclusion?



The above has been thrashed a number of times.



Do you even know what freewill is? You are becoming suspicious o For the avoidance of doubt, freewill can mean Voluntary choice or decision which has not been predetermined by anyone. Unless you can show that seeing someone's future is the same as stopping the person from making a decision freely then your arguments translates to nothing.



Thrashed!!!



Need I explain what I agreed to? I think not! It will be a waste of time!




Thrashed!!!




May be this would help your understanding of mutually exclusive: Independence!



Did you even read the above? I know your future actions means you no longer have freewill? What logic!!!



You still fail to show that when someone's future is known, his ability to decide is taken away from him. Question: If God does not force man to decide and man does not decide, who then makes the decision?



I laugh!!!



Thrashed!!!



Thrashed!!!



I don vex!!! See as you make me miss Ba's goal!!!

Striky, i am quite disappointed I must tell you. When did you become like this?

No matter how you decide to approach this, for you to be right then you must agree that the omniscience of god is not absolute and that god is not perfect. As long as you continue to claim god is perfect and absolute, then things must happen according to how he saw them.

You did not just reject a simple fact here, you also contradicted many bible verses that says thar God determines future, which literally means predestination and that his plans must come to pass because he is god.

I will post this bible verses only on your request so you dont accuse me of being a theologian as Ihedinobi did.

Dont forget Rev that says you should remove anything from the bible and that if you did, hell is your home and remember Jobs friends that accused him of being a sinmer even though they knew he was righteous all so they could prove god to be just. This is exactly what you are doing.

So on further request, i will show you how you continue to call the bible a liar by claiming that freewill and omniscience are NOT mutually exclusive

striktlymi:

I didn't know your sojourn on the sugar candy mountain made you adopt the 'lying tac'.

Your opinion, your right!


Get some sense abeg.

And top of the day to you, good ser.

striktlymi:


Well Wieg, I don't quite agree with the bold. If you hold on to the following comment:

then the implication there is that some being has made every decision for us. If someone has already made our decisions then there is no way we can show that the individual did not make our choices too. The word determine can have the following definitions:

de·ter·mine
/diˈtərmin/
Verb
Cause (something) to occur in a particular way.
Firmly decide: "she determined to tackle him the next day"; "he determined on a plan".

which shows clearly that if an individual has determined our future then that individual necessarily decides what we do, which precludes our ability to make our very own choices. If this ability to make choices is not ours then the individual can be said to have made every choice for us which in effect is the same argument I put forth initially.

In the midst of all this semantic issues you neglect one thing; no conscious agent need determine the future. All that matters is that it be determinable, via which ever means. No individual necessary.

What agent determines the future is irrelevant, just that it is, again, determinable. Nature, mathematics and logic, conscious agents, whatever, doesn't matter who or what determines it, just that it's determined. It has to be determined before you can report on it, isn't that obvious? Or can you magically report an answer without working it out? That is, of course, illogical.

Your god could use formulas built around physical laws, time travel or whatever to figure out what the determined future is. So, and again, he need not determine the future for you, but the future has to be determinable, one way or the other.

striktlymi:
The above sounds more like you wanting omniscient to mean an ability to determine someone's future. But you know that does not define omniscient. The fact that someone is omniscient does not mean that the individual determines anyone's future...like I have mentioned before, an ability to see into the future impeccably does not mean an ability to decide that future.

No it doesn't. I've made clear what omniscience implies, I think. And note, we're talking about infallible omniscience.

As for the bolded, I've stated that myself several times I think. In fact, I've stated that an ability to see the future impeccably means you ultimately have no say whatsoever in what the future is. In other words, no free will. The future seen must occur.

striktlymi:

Nah...that sounds more like TBJ's method of predicting the future . An omniscient being need not do that...it's more like knowing the outcome of every action before the action takes place.

There is an infinite number of choices we can make for every decision making process but the probability of us making one choice at any time (t) is always one i.e. P(t) = 1. This choice we make is already known to this omniscient being before it is made; which really does not undermine the fact that we made the choice irrespective the 'knowledge' of this omniscient being.

So, you must make the choice predicted or the omniscient will be wrong, yes?

Hold onto this, back to my earlier post, and convert this to a hypothetical scenario....

wiegraf:
For instance, assuming you somehow had this knowledge of the future and did all you could to change it, you would fail. So would the omniscient as well actually, else he'd be wrong.

So, I'll modify this to a question

wiegraf:
Supposing you somehow had knowledge of the future and did all you could to change it, you would fail regardless of whatever any agent tried to do, yes?

Your reply is..

striktlymi:
Not exactly...if one hypothetically gets a hold of what the future would be and he or she works to change it, that change will definitely occur but the snag there is that the individual has determined another future for himself which the omniscient being knows about.If you have read the story of Nineveh and how they changed their future then you would get a glimpse of what I am talking about.

No. This is running around in circles. Infallibly omniscient means can never be wrong, simple. If one could go against the initial prediction the omniscient made then the omniscient was wrong. Simple

It cannot get any simpler than this, I'm not sure I could put it in simpler terms. For instance, in this case study(?), infallible omniscience would mean your omniscient would have told the Nineveh guys they would (ostensibly) change their future or whatever, and they would not be able to do anything about it. They must change their future, everything must come to pass as foretold regardless of whatever anyone tried, else it'd be wrong. Once they can change the future the omniscient knows (or thought it knew) will come to pass, then it obviously isn't infallible.

striktlymi:
God does not decide our future for us, he only knows what will happen. No one's future is cast in stone...we have ample opportunity of changing a future that seem almost certain (given a foreknowledge) but this change is already known to the omniscient one.



The future is not cast in stone! We all have our choices to make without someone determining it for us.

As above, it would be cast in stone, and even god wouldn't be able to do anything about it without voiding omniscience.

striktlymi:
As I have explained before, the choices are numerous but the choice we finally settle for is always one at any given time.


There is always an option to every decision we intend to make and no one's future is cast in stone.


No body's path is predetermined!

Everyone has the freedom to go with whatever option he or she wants.

Impossible if the decision is already determined.

striktlymi:
No body makes that choice for the individual. Knowing a future is different from determining it. The option we go for is known but the choice made is ours.

And how did this known future come about without determining it first?

striktlymi:
How does knowing someone's response translate to determining that response? I know what will happen tomorrow to Mr. A, is different from I have determined what will happen to Mr. A tomorrow.

It translates to that person's response being determined, not necessarily by you though.

striktlymi:
Of course you talked about the future being determined...that you did say!

Indeed!

striktlymi:
You have really not given any reason for your accusation!

I have!

striktlymi:
That would be the same as asking why the human brain is located in the head and not the stomach The simple answer is: I don't know

That's why I say hypothetically. I'm rather busy/tired/ill so I won't bother with this just atm.

striktlymi:

I do get the point you have made so far and frankly, looking at it from your perspective, they make sense but the ish is they are incorrect.

They are not. Think on it.

Edits; minor

Logicboy03:



Your opinion, your right!


Get some sense abeg.

My sense tell me say you lied when you say I run away!

musKeeto:

Men, I understand. Lost my siblings sometime back. Go to my stickied thread on this section - best religion forum threads. There are a few threads there that could really help you..

Pls no even reason suicide.. Abeg o.. For the sake of your family..

pls clearify more on this... anything will help me, just direct me better. thanks

Good evening ooman,

ooman:

Striky, i am quite disappointed I must tell you. When did you become like this?

No matter how you decide to approach this, for you to be right then you must agree that the omniscience of god is not absolute and that god is not perfect. As long as you continue to claim god is perfect and absolute, then things must happen according to how he saw them.

Well ooman, the above are not arguments but sentiments. I would have been happier if you had brought out some super arguments to refute mine and prove that I have been 'nacking my teeth' since the thread began. C'mon ooman feed me with logic...I am hungryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy....

ooman:
You did not just reject a simple fact here,

You still claim I rejected FACTS!!! ooman please point out where I rejected FACTS and I will do your laundry for a month.

ooman:
you also contradicted many bible verses that says thar God determines future, which literally means predestination and that his plans must come to pass because he is god.

Well ooman, with respect to those verses, I believe I have already explained those earlier in one of my post. I quite agree that to the uninitiated it looks more like God determines one's future when you read some passages in sacred scriptures but to the initiated this is not the case. Refer to my earlier comments on the Pharaoh and Judas ish.

ooman:
I will post this bible verses only on your request so you dont accuse me of being a theologian as Ihedinobi did.

Please post them at your own discretion...there is really nothing to hide

ooman:
Dont forget Rev that says you should remove anything from the bible and that if you did, hell is your home and remember Jobs friends that accused him of being a sinmer even though they knew he was righteous all so they could prove god to be just. This is exactly what you are doing.

Sentiments man, sentiments!

ooman:
So on further request, i will show you how you continue to call the bible a liar by claiming that freewill and omniscience are NOT mutually exclusive

You do need to explain your approach to this 'mutually exclusive' thingy. My approach basically is that God's omnipotence and man's freewill are mutually exclusive to the extent that God's omniscient has nothing to do with the freewill of man i.e. one does not determine the other.

In other words, God's omniscience does not impair the freewill of man and man's freewill does not render the omniscience of God invalid. There is no point of intersection.

wiegraf: And top of the day to you, good ser.



In the midst of all this semantic issues you neglect one thing; no conscious agent need determine the future. All that matters is that it be determinable, via which ever means. No individual necessary.

What agent determines the future is irrelevant, just that it is, again, determinable. Nature, mathematics and logic, conscious agents, whatever, doesn't matter who or what determines it, just that it's determined. It has to be determined before you can report on it, isn't that obvious? Or can you magically report an answer without working it out? That is, of course, illogical.

Your god could use formulas built around physical laws, time travel or whatever to figure out what the determined future is. So, and again, he need not determine the future for you, but the future has to be determinable, one way or the other.



No it doesn't. I've made clear what omniscience implies, I think. And note, we're talking about infallible omniscience.

As for the bolded, I've stated that myself several times I think. In fact, I've stated that an ability to see the future impeccably means you ultimately have no say whatsoever in what the future is. In other words, no free will. The future seen must occur.



So, you must make the choice predicted or the omniscient will be wrong, yes?

Hold onto this, back to my earlier post, and convert this to a hypothetical scenario....



So, I'll modify this to a question



Your reply is..



No. This is running around in circles. Infallibly omniscient means can never be wrong, simple. If one could go against the initial prediction the omniscient made then the omniscient was wrong. Simple

It cannot get any simpler than this, I'm not sure I could put it in simpler terms. For instance, in this case study(?), infallible omniscience would mean your omniscient would have told the Nineveh guys they would (ostensibly) change their future or whatever, and they would not be able to do anything about it. They must change their future, everything must come to pass as foretold regardless of whatever anyone tried, else it'd be wrong. Once they can change the future the omniscient knows (or thought it knew) will come to pass, then it obviously isn't infallible.




As above, it would be cast in stone, and even god wouldn't be able to do anything about it without voiding omniscience.




Impossible if the decision is already determined.




And how did this known future come about without determining it first?





It translates to that person's response being determined, not necessarily by you though.





Indeed!



I have!



That's why I say hypothetically. I'm rather busy/tired/ill so I won't bother with this just atm.



They are not. Think on it.

Edits; minor

I believe this will be good! I will get back to it! I want to read it with my binoculars!

Logicboy03:


Thank Gawd that people have already pointed out your foolishness in asking these questions. It is clear that you dont want to discuss this issue sensibly on this thread.

This thread....

@ihe, no gree.

Welcome back, Ser @LB, welcome back

frank3.16:


pls clearify more on this... anything will help me, just direct me better. thanks

This thread...
https://www.nairaland.com/966136/best-religion-forum-topics

I suggest these ones
https://www.nairaland.com/274559/think-im-losing-faith-god
And this: https://www.nairaland.com/564882/why-did-god-need-write

Especially the first one. There's a short story on the last page by poster called akered.

All the best man. Stay strong.

striktlymi: Good evening ooman,



Well ooman, the above are not arguments but sentiments. I would have been happier if you had brought out some super arguments to refute mine and prove that I have been 'nacking my teeth' since the thread began. C'mon ooman feed me with logic...I am hungryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy....



You still claim I rejected FACTS!!! ooman please point out where I rejected FACTS and I will do your laundry for a month.



Well ooman, with respect to those verses, I believe I have already explained those earlier in one of my post. I quite agree that to the uninitiated it looks more like God determines one's future when you read some passages in sacred scriptures but to the initiated this is not the case. Refer to my earlier comments on the Pharaoh and Judas ish.



Please post them at your own discretion...there is really nothing to hide



Sentiments man, sentiments!



You do need to explain your approach to this 'mutually exclusive' thingy. My approach basically is that God's omnipotence and man's freewill are mutually exclusive to the extent that God's omniscient has nothing to do with the freewill of man i.e. one does not determine the other.

In other words, God's omniscience does not impair the freewill of man and man's freewill does not render the omniscience of God invalid. There is no point of intersection.

I will be back with my binoculars too for this.

wiegraf:

This thread....

@ihe, no gree.

Welcome back, Ser @LB, welcome back

lol....cheers bro

On this thread:

The incessantly stubborn striklymi

The persistently enlightening ooman

The brilliant-feeling schizophrenia infected ihedinobi

The respectfully enlightening wiegraf
.......................................................
With the imparting impact of ma fellow atheists,I don't c a complementing veracious analysis to the OP convincing the two christians ^^.
I will rather help to c receptive religious folks get rid of the mentally maniacal confinement of the God concept. Motivational n Enlightening atheist thread like this one,should make NL front-page.

^^^ mods here run nairaland invidiously.

Good morning Wieg,

I trust you had a splendid night's rest...now where is this fantastic logic you threw my way? Hmmmm...aah there it is...
**inspects and adjusts binoculars**

wiegraf: And top of the day to you, good ser.

In the midst of all this semantic issues you neglect one thing; no conscious agent need determine the future. All that matters is that it be determinable, via which ever means. No individual necessary.

What agent determines the future is irrelevant, just that it is, again, determinable. Nature, mathematics and logic, conscious agents, whatever, doesn't matter who or what determines it, just that it's determined. It has to be determined before you can report on it, isn't that obvious? Or can you magically report an answer without working it out? That is, of course, illogical. Your god could use formulas built around physical laws, time travel or whatever to figure out what the determined future is. So, and again, he need not determine the future for you, but the future has to be determinable, one way or the other.

C'mon wieg, of-course it's obvious...I didn't use your looking glass for nothing. I have reviewed your argument as an Atheist would (specifically as wieg would) and frankly I have seen what you see which I admit makes sense when viewed in that manner but it is not exactly accurate.

For starters, if you hold that the future need not be determined by a conscious agent, then that leaves God out of it which sends ooman's position to the gallows.

Now if the future is not determined by God but by something or someone else then it implies that God has nothing to do with man's freewill because he has not determined what man will do; but rather his omniscient allows him to see man's future but powerless to change it even if he wanted to.

The bone of contention here is whether or not God's omniscient renders man's freewill irrelevant and I have shown that it would be impractical for God to determine man's future without making man's decision for him. I believe that God does not determine man's future and I know that omniscience has nothing to do with determining someone's future...

The strength of your argument really would lie in the thought that man's future is determined irrespective of who or what determines it...if this can be shown then it would be appropriate to say that man has no freewill but this would have nothing to do with God's omniscience. But the loophole in your argument is that you have not shown that the future of man is determined.

wiegraf:
No it doesn't. I've made clear what omniscience implies, I think. And note, we're talking about infallible omniscience.

As for the bolded, I've stated that myself several times I think. In fact, I've stated that an ability to see the future impeccably means you ultimately have no say whatsoever in what the future is. In other words, no free will. The future seen must occur.

I have demonstrated a number of times, I think, that for us to accept that the free will of man is impaired there is a need to prove that man is coerced to take any action...that what man does has nothing to do with what he would have wanted to do if given the freedom of choice...

Let's take a computer as an example (though less than appropriate but just work with me here). Given that a computer is programmed to work in a particular order to the extent of making seemingly 'intelligent' decisions given some set parameters just as the designer wants, it can be said that the actions of this computer has been predetermined and what it does is not really making decisions but doing what the designer wants.

Now in the case of this computer, there is nothing like a freedom of choice cause there is no such thing as an infinite number of possible choices but rather what we have is a number of choices that has been hardwired into this computer by the designer. In other words, the computers choices are exactly the designers choices.

It is easy to see at a glance that this computer has nothing like free will, it's every action and responses are known to the designer but the trick is...the computers free will is not impaired because the designer knows what it will do but because the designer has made his own choices that of the computer.

wiegraf:
So, you must make the choice predicted or the omniscient will be wrong, yes?

Um...the answer would be YES! But you left out one small detail...we are not talking about making predictions here. Omniscience and prediction have a meeting point but they are not exactly the same.

wiegraf:
Hold onto this, back to my earlier post, and convert this to a hypothetical scenario....

So, I'll modify this to a question

Your reply is..

No. This is running around in circles. Infallibly omniscient means can never be wrong, simple. If one could go against the initial prediction the omniscient made then the omniscient was wrong. Simple

It cannot get any simpler than this, I'm not sure I could put it in simpler terms. For instance, in this case study(?), infallible omniscience would mean your omniscient would have told the Nineveh guys they would (ostensibly) change their future or whatever, and they would not be able to do anything about it. They must change their future, everything must come to pass as foretold regardless of whatever anyone tried, else it'd be wrong. Once they can change the future the omniscient knows (or thought it knew) will come to pass, then it obviously isn't infallible.

Let's see if this example will help...

A child is born to a man and this man can see the future...

The man saw that his son will be admitted into LSE at age 10...

The man worked hard to get enough money to sponsor this child pending this seen future...

The child studied hard without having a clue what his future is...

The child did well in school and merited an admission into LSE...

Do we now conclude that this father manipulated the son's future by just knowing about it? If we are to accuse the man of manipulation then we need to demonstrate that this man has used his know how to influence the son's decisions and every actions leading to his admission.

wiegraf:
As above, it would be cast in stone, and even god wouldn't be able to do anything about it without voiding omniscience.

Disagree!

wiegraf:
Impossible if the decision is already determined.

Not determined!

wiegraf:
And how did this known future come about without determining it first?

It translates to that person's response being determined, not necessarily by you though.

The case of the computer is a predetermined future but that of man is not.

wiegraf:
Indeed!



I have!



That's why I say hypothetically. I'm rather busy/tired/ill so I won't bother with this just atm.

wiegraf:
They are not. Think on it.

Edits; minor

I have really! I even slept on it and still I don't think your position is right as regards this matter.

ooman: ^^^ mods here run nairaland invidiously.

Good morning guy,

I have a very small brain o, put it not into foncusion!

striktlymi: Good evening ooman,

Well ooman, the above are not arguments but sentiments. I would have been happier if you had brought out some super arguments to refute mine and prove that I have been 'nacking my teeth' since the thread began. C'mon ooman feed me with logic...I am hungryyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy....

what evidence can you provide for someone who doesnt take evidences seriously

striktlymi: You still claim I rejected FACTS!!! ooman please point out where I rejected FACTS and I will do your laundry for a month.

You rejected that freewill and omniscience are mutually exclusive and decided to neglect the fact that god is omnipotent and perfect and absolute and you continue to use man in your dumb analogies in place of god all so you could prevaricate.

striktlymi: Well ooman, with respect to those verses, I believe I have already explained those earlier in one of my post. I quite agree that to the uninitiated it looks more like God determines one's future when you read some passages in sacred scriptures but to the initiated this is not the case. Refer to my earlier comments on the Pharaoh and Judas ish.

I understand that the bible is self contradictory, if it says A here, it will say B there and that contradiction is what you based your salvation on, there is no point in taking the bible seriously.

striktlymi: Please post them at your own discretion...there is really nothing to hide

Isaiah 41v1 NLT says God DIRECTS the affairs of the human race.

striktlymi: Sentiments man, sentiments!

since when do bible stories become sentiments

striktlymi: You do need to explain your approach to this 'mutually exclusive' thingy. My approach basically is that God's omnipotence and man's freewill are mutually exclusive to the extent that God's omniscient has nothing to do with the freewill of man i.e. one does not determine the other.

God knows the end of a matter, God is infallible, therefore the end must place according to his infallible knowledge, if not God is fallible. Nothing so hard to understand in that. You just prefer to evade the truth.

striktlymi: In other words, God's omniscience does not impair the freewill of man and man's freewill does not render the omniscience of God invalid. There is no point of intersection.

and you are yet to really prove how that is true. Remember the last time you tried, you fell upon your own sword as LB exposed you.

see this again :God knows the end of a matter, God is infallible, therefore the end must place according to his infallible knowledge, if not God is fallible. Nothing so hard to understand in that. You just prefer to evade the truth.

Now you thinking you have freewill is the fraud that god had on you and your kind.

striktlymi:

Good morning guy,

I have a very small brain o, put it not into foncusion!

what! use your dictionary

Logicboy03:




It remains foreknowledge to god since he would have to still operat within time to make effects in our time filled universe. No arguing with that. Note that a timeless being is also nonsensical

I don't see how God needs to operate within time to produce effects in history. How does acting from outside time fail to producw effects in history? Do I have to be inside a football to alter its properties? I don't think so. In fact, being outside the leather ball is more guaranteed to facilitate any operation upon it.

Also there is a logical contradiction between omniscience and freewill which i wont explain for the 5th time. Sensible people dont argue with facts. There is no choice on a predestined or chosen path

And my question to you has remained invariably "what is this logical contradiction?" Insisting that it is a fact or that nine billion people agree that it is a logical contradiction is still not gonna tell me what the contradiction is.

ooman:

what evidence can you provide for someone who doesnt take evidences seriously





You rejected that freewill and omniscience are mutually exclusive and decided to neglect the fact that god is omnipotent and perfect and absolute and you continue to use man in your dumb analogies in place of god all so you could prevaricate.





I understand that the bible is self contradictory, if it says A here, it will say B there and that contradiction is what you based your salvation on, there is no point in taking the bible seriously.





Isaiah 41v1 NLT says God DIRECTS the affairs of the human race.






since when do bible stories become sentiments





God knows the end of a matter, God is infallible, therefore the end must place according to his infallible knowledge, if not God is fallible. Nothing so hard to understand in that. You just prefer to evade the truth.




and you are yet to really prove how that is true. Remember the last time you tried, you fell upon your own sword as LB exposed you.

see this again :God knows the end of a matter, God is infallible, therefore the end must place according to his infallible knowledge, if not God is fallible. Nothing so hard to understand in that. You just prefer to evade the truth.

Now you thinking you have freewill is the fraud that god had on you and your kind.

After the dance with wieg, I believe I have earned the right to go play somewhere else

I will be back though with a response...don't miss me too much

ooman:

what! use your dictionary

LWKMD!!!

striktlymi:

LWKMD!!!