Wednesday, March 28, 2007

What part of omnipotent doesn't Dan understand?

The irrepressible (I'm sure people around here have other adjectives they'd prefer) Dan Marvin keeps on keepin' on in the comments. This time, he thinks he's come up with a real stump-the-atheist slamdunk. Behold.

So I pose to you “You are God” how would you do thing different then him to solve the issues that he has? Remember you have an entire race to deal with. Millions of variables how would you solve his issues? Play God for a day and set the world strait. Pick a subject of your choice and solve it better then him.

Ooo. Gee. If I were God. Wow. I have enough time trying to control my two dogs and my one-eyed cat. Don't lay a whole God trip on me, man!

Dan here is basically saying, "Look, guys, don't you understand that being God is hard work? I mean, he has an entire race to deal with! And having to choose between all the millions of variables, just think how hard it must be for him to solve all his issues! Could you do better? Cut the Guy some slack already!"

To which we calmly reply, Dan, you dink, your God is supposed to be omnipotent (no limits to his abilities), omniscient (no limits to his knowledge past, present, or future), and omnibenevolent (no limits to his goodwill towards humanity). Suddenly, we pesky atheists bring up things like war, pestilence, and child rape, and the only way you can defend your God's inaction on these horrors is to transform him from the transcendent, supernatural, all-powerful deity you insist we must worship to save ourselves, into some pitiful, overworked middle-management schmoe who's doing the best he can under really tough, trying conditions. And anyway, could we presume to do better?

Of course, any omniscient, omnipotent being who really wanted to sort out the millions of issues plaguing a whole race (I assume Dan means species; of course, there's more than one of those around) could do so without lifting a finger, by an act of pure will alone. That's the whole benefit of being, you know, omni-everything!

Dan really needs to understand what he's defending before he tries to defend it. But it's not as if I'm surprised his attempts at theodicy are as pitiful as every other argument he's tried to present us over the past month.

16 comments:

  1. I don't know who Dan is, but lucky for him, he can play the role of an omnipotent, omniscient, and - if he chooses - benevolent god for a day.

    Just use The God Simulator!

    It's a fantastic demonstration of exactly what Dan is referring to.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Dan asks: So I pose to you “You are God” how would you do thing different then him to solve the issues that he has? Remember you have an entire race to deal with. Millions of variables how would you solve his issues? Play God for a day and set the world strait. Pick a subject of your choice and solve it better then him.

    The first thing I would do Dan, is make sure that my defenders know how to spell, punctuate, and use grammar correctly. Functionally illiterate followers would embarrass the hell out of me.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Martin posed ” Of course, any omniscient, omnipotent being who really wanted to sort out the millions of issues plaguing a whole {1.}race (I assume Dan means species; of course, there's more than one of those around) could do so without lifting a finger, by an act of pure will alone. That's the whole benefit of being, you know, omni-everything!”{1.yes species, I was going to put universe but I narrowed it as to not overwhelm you all, I forgot the word human which just makes me one}

    The The God Simulator
    In its simplicity, from an atheist slant is quite funny. I find it interesting if you choose to erase free will or humans for that matter then you end up in bliss in heaven. Even Martin answered that way in his blog; Remove all free will and poof all is easy. So Martin poses a dictatorship of sorts to have a perfect heaven and no evil, interesting. Isn’t this what atheist complain about the most, how if you don’t bow to the evil dictator Jesus that you will end up in hell and such. Is atheist trying to have their cake and eat it too? So let me ask point blank Martin, is your position to solve all of mankind’s problems to simply remove free will? Do you have a “Deist” belief system?

    “Diests:

    Do not accept the belief of most religions that God revealed himself to humanity through the writings of the Bible, the Qur'an or other religious texts.

    They regard their faith as a natural religion, as contrasted with one that is revealed by a God or which is artificially created by humans. They reason that since everything that exists has had a creator, then the universe itself must have been created by God. Thomas Paine concluded a speech shortly after the French Revolution with: "God is the power of first cause, nature is the law, and matter is the subject acted upon."

    Most Deists view God as having departed from nature. Thus, prayer makes no sense to them. (ref his last post)

    Most Deists believe that God created the universe, "wound it up" and then disassociated himself from his creation. Some refer to Deists as believing in a God who acts as an absentee landlord or a blind watchmaker.”

    Side Note: Aren’t atheists trying to “play God” anyway? They remove God from schools to create Columbine type children or create a safe way to abort 40 million babies only to clone them later on. Ah the advancement of science. So be proud atheist (now they are cloning meat, yummy). I heard a frightening statistic and it relates to the decision that was made to remove God’s morals and in reference to the school system for sexually active kids. In the 60’s there was a 1 out of 38 chance to catching a sexually transmitted disease. In the 80’s it reduced to 1 out of 18. Today that number is now 1 out of 3. That is frightening! They claim science is advancing and I do not see that in this situation.

    Wasn’t it an atheist, who single-handedly removed God, the Bible and prayer from public schools in 1962 or at least petitioned it and the Supreme Court agreed?

    I gave this on an earlier post but it still fits for this discussion:

    I just don’t know if there even will be free will in heaven. I know we won’t want to leave and be tempted to leave. We can appreciate Gods goodness in the presence of evil. Unlike Adam who didn’t know evil, Satan who didn’t know evil, until they fell. We do! Because of it, we so appreciate his goodness and no matter what temptation that will come our way in heaven, if that could even happen, there would be no way, why? Because we knew how horrible evil was and now we can fully appreciate his goodness.

    The presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his righteousness, the presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his love, and how else could he show the character of love that loves enemies and sinners if there were none? God endures this horrible assault on his everlasting holiness; he endures the horrifying blaspheming, history of fallen beings, he suffers it, the imposition it is on his purity to display his wrath to the fullest extent, to put himself on everlasting display.

    Why are we here? What is the theological answer? To give the text book answer, to glorify God and enjoy him ever more. How do you glorify God? Here is how, you sinner, go get saved. Get saved so God can be glorified, that’s it; this is the purpose of this entire universe.

    God knew we would sin, He knew we would rebel, He knew we would introduce evil, He knew it. So that he can send forth a savior born of a virgin, to live under the law to save us under the curse of the law so that, we can be a little trophy of his grace, he can always point to us as a testimony to his goodness. Ephesians 2:7

    We wouldn’t know how God is righteous as he is, everlastingly, and give him glory for it if it hadn’t had of been for unrighteousness, we wouldn’t know he’s loving as he is if it hadn’t been for sin, we wouldn’t know he’s holy if it weren’t for judgment.

    How holy is God? So holy that he must send out of his presence, everlastingly, anyone who is not fit. Why of all this? That he might make known the riches of his glory, that is, he did all of this in order that he might gather into heaven a redeemed humanity who would forever glorify him for all that he is.

    *paraphrased from Todd Friel and Dr. John Macarthur

    For Him,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  4. "Isn’t this what atheist complain about the most, how if you don’t bow to the evil dictator Jesus that you will end up in hell and such."

    After I stopped laughing, I stopped reading.

    Oh, Dan, you are a card.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Dear Chickensh**t Bullsh**tter Dan Yellow-backed Marvin,

    Ran to another post again, you yellow-backed coward? Trying to obfuscate the issues by non-answers and general stupidity? Little BOY, you can't do it. You were formally challenged and you ran like the yellow-backed lying coward you are. You haven't answered me, LIAR. Back up your statement that you can prove Jesus existed. YOU said it, no one else here did.

    As is usual, you yellow-backed lying coward, the sh**t you defecate from that anus on your face reeks of ignorance: "Side Note: Aren't atheists trying to "play God" anyway?""

    To a lying scared little BOY like you, the world IS a frightening place full of adults who do mystical and marvelous things that SEEM godlike, but CHILD, they are not. Be of good cheer, you lying yellow-backed coward, do not be frightened by LIES. Yes, LIES, like the "frightening statistic" you heard. It is a LIE, just like all the sh**t you defecate on this site. When you grow up, you will learn how to research LIES and you too will seem 'godlike,' because you will be using that brain of yours, an ADULT trait.

    "Wasn't it an atheist,..." No, you ignorant, yellow-backed lying coward, that 'godlike' ADULT merely spoke the obvious: sh**t like the bible and prayer being taught and tolerated in the public schools was simply unconstitutional. Come now, BOY, roll that around in that anus on your face: un-con-sti-tu-tion-al. There ARE a lot of syllables in such a big, grown-up, god-like word for such a yellow-backed lying BOY like you, CB Dan, but if you control that sphincter, that anus on your face will master it.

    "To give the text book answer..." That compilation of poorly plagiarized lies is NOT a textbook, CB Dan. It is a book of LIES STOLEN from other tales and cultures. NOTHING, I repeat for you, you lying yellow-backed coward, NOTHING in that book can be used as ANYTHING other than an example of how one group of power mad pederasts can put together a bunch of stupid SH**T and make a lot of gullible morons (like you) do as they want.

    The rest of your non-answer is just more sh**t oozing out of that anus on your face. It is truly unfortunate you cannot comprehend how incredibly stupid you sound to an adult. To say a god created beings who would fail so he could burn them forever to glorify himself is so twisted it's sick. And because FEAR rules you, you lying coward, you actually believe that foul human-hating sh**t.

    Chickensh**t Bullsh**tter Dan Yellow-backed Marvin, you were formally challenged to respond to your claim that you could prove that Jesus existed. You have not. You are a LIAR. You are a COWARD. You were given the chance to act like an adult and you did not. You are being treated as a BOY because you have shown yourself to be nothing more.

    Do I sound repetitive to you, Chickensh**t Bullsh**tter Dan Yellow-backed Marvin? Good. That is how you sound to us. Again and again and again you defecate the most egregiously ignorant sh**t on this site and each time we show you where you're wrong (everywhere). Yet you repeat and repeat and REPEAT the SAME LIES and STUPIDITY.

    SHUT UP and go home, you lying, yellow-backed, ignorant coward. You're not doing anyone any good here, there, or anywhere. You're just being annoying.

    Go home to mama, BOY, and let the big dogs do their thing.

    Just another in a long line of unanswered challengers of CB Dan Y-B Marvin,

    Otto

    ReplyDelete
  6. tracie harris3/29/2007 6:08 AM

    >Even Martin answered that way in his blog; Remove all free will and poof all is easy. So Martin poses a dictatorship of sorts to have a perfect heaven and no evil, interesting.

    Does god have free will? Is god always, only moral? If so, it is then possible to have free will and be always only moral. If that is the case, god could have created people with the disposition to be always, only moral, and still have free will--since that is, obviously, an option I think you would say exists--because you appear to be claiming your god is moral and all-powerful (which means he has free will).

    ReplyDelete
  7. tracie harris3/29/2007 6:21 AM

    Also, I posted this at a previous comment post, but I want to add it here, because here is where Dan seems to be at the moment:

    >Tracie ” And when I saw that what was true conflicted with my belief in god's existence, then truth won out.” prove this statement.

    My belief in god was founded on many different things. One was, for example, that the Bible was god’s word. When I realized that there is no claim from god that this is his word, I was left with the reality that people put this book together and claimed god endorsed their actions. My belief in god was that actions of people required clear authorization from god. This was lacking—and created a _truth_ that conflicted with my belief in god. Therefore, “what was true” conflicted with “my belief in god.” There are many more examples I could provide, but this one should be enough to illustrate my point.

    >“Also, I don’t think you know what an atheist is, still. An atheist is anyone who lacks belief in god. ” this is a false statement, Tracie look at the definition you can’t change it. They deny the existence of God. I like you Tracie I hope God will touch both you and Stephen someday in your lives.

    Here is the definition you provided:

    a•the•ist (ā'thē-ĭst)
    n. One who disbelieves or denies the existence of God

    Not trying to be condescending, but since you’ve disregarded this so often, I have to ask: Do you know what the conjunction “OR” means, and how it differs from “AND”?

    One who disbelieves the existence of god is an atheist. One who denies the existence of god is an atheist. One who does both is an atheist. A person who does either or both is an atheist.

    I disbelieve the existence of god. I am an atheist by the definition above.

    If I said: One who drives a truck or a car is a driver. Would you say that if someone only drove a car, and never a truck—that they are _not_ then a driver? You’re being argumentative here for the sake of being argumentative (i.e., intellectually dishonest), and there is no point to it. It only derails us from the discussion: Does god exist?

    Also, just to add (this wasn't in my original post), can you say with a straight face that if I asked 100 Xians: What do you call a person who does not believe in god?" That ANY of them wouldn't say: "an atheist."? The dictionary is a record of the definitions native English speakers use. Again, you're not being straight with me.

    Why are you creating a diversion? If I think your belief in god is unjustified, and I don’t believe in god’s existence; what difference does it make what anyone labels me? Again—you can call me “Satanist” if you like. Whatever label you slap on me--even if it’s clearly a misconception (such as this latest distortion)—I don’t really care. The point is: I think your claim of god’s existence is unsupported and based on irrational reasoning. And that’s what I’ve been arguing all this time. Suddenly, you decided, that if you can label me something different, that somehow changes my claim that your beliefs are unsupported?

    Call me “X” if it makes you feel better. It doesn’t matter to me at all. The problem remains that you still have failed to prove your premise. And it still appears as though no god exists.

    And to make the point about “atheist” as crystal clear as possible:

    Many people claim they are abducted by aliens.

    They present “evidence” of this.

    The evidence they present is extremely interpretive and inconclusive.

    They show nothing that proves aliens even exist, let alone are abducting people.

    Therefore, I do not believe aliens are abducting people. And based on the total lack of evidence, it appears the odds are slim to none their claims are based in reality—since nothing in reality justifies what they’re claiming.

    It is logically possible that one day aliens may come forward and claim accountability for abducting all these people; in which case, I would have to now believe aliens actually _were_ abducting these people (or the aliens are lying).

    But until aliens come forward to say this is occurring, I’d have to be pretty gullible and have extremely low standards of evidence in order to accept the current claims that aliens exist and are abducting people.

    There is a clear lack of evidence alien abductions are occurring (agnostic, knowledge claim); and so it makes no sense to believe alien abductions are occurring (atheist, disbelief).

    For practical purposes, I am willing to say “Alien abductions don’t occur.” (denial); However, logically speaking, I do allow the caveat that although there is currently no reason for anyone to believe this tripe, one day a reason could surface that would change that.

    Plug in god, and you’ve got my stance on god’s existence.

    I am an atheist. I am an agnostic atheist. I am whatever you want to call me. But no matter what you call me: I believe your claims are just as ridiculous as the claims above. And you’ve offered nothing more convincing than: “Well, logically speaking, a god _could_ exist—you can’t deny that!”

    Your belief in god's existence is now as logically supported as alien abduction.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Does god have free will? Is god always, only moral? If so, it is then possible to have free will and be always only moral.

    And what about heaven? Do people still sin in heaven? If not, have they lost their free will?

    ReplyDelete
  9. It is not surprising at all that Dan has chosen to respond with hand waving and diversions, when he isn't falling back on his old standby, pure ignorance. Listen to this hopeless dribble.

    Aren’t atheists trying to “play God” anyway? They remove God from schools to create Columbine type children or create a safe way to abort 40 million babies only to clone them later on. Ah the advancement of science.

    Ah, the detachment from reality. I swear this guy is easy pickings. Every time he sits down at his keyboard, stupid comes out.

    The 1962 Murray v. Curlett decision didn't "remove God from schools," no matter what sniveling Christians and their persecution complexes say. What it removed was the ability of schools, as state-sponsored entities, to force students, whether they were Christian or not, to engage in prayer, Bible reading, and other Christian religious practice. It is still entirely legal, and always has been, for any Christian student to pray in school on their own, take their Bible to school, have after-school Christian club meetings, and all that. For a government-run school to force religious activities is a clear violation of the establishment clause, and thus the case was decided correctly.

    As for his retarded babble about babies, I assume he's trying to draw a link between stem cell research and abortion, where no actual link exists. Count on a fundamentalist not to know what he's talking about...pretty much ever.

    In truth, America is a much safer place than it was in the early 1960's, when the O'Hair case was decided. The teen pregnancy rate is also way down. As this study indicates (the link is a PDF), "The teenage pregnancy rate in this country is at its lowest level in 30 years, down 36% since its peak in 1990. A growing body of research suggests that both increased abstinence and changes in contraceptive practice are responsible for recent declines in teenage pregnancy." Now here's the funny part: the highest teen pregnancy rates are in such Bible Belt strongholds as Texas, Mississippi, and Arkansas. The lowest? Why, they're in those New England hotbeds of evil godless liberalism, like New Hampshire, Vermont and Massachusetts! Oh, the horrible legacy atheism has left us!

    So let me ask point blank Martin, is your position to solve all of mankind’s problems to simply remove free will? Do you have a “Deist” belief system?

    No, you clown, I'm an atheist. I would have thought that would have been clear to you in all the time you've been coming here. Then again, your track record for understanding things has not been very good.

    And no, I never once said I would remove free will. You still are too butt-stupid to understand my point about free will and action being two completely different things. As for this response...

    The presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his righteousness, the presence of sin allows God to demonstrate his love, and how else could he show the character of love that loves enemies and sinners if there were none?

    You've just regurgitated the same failed theodicy that my original post demolished. How does God show the character of his love by doing nothing to protect children from rape? You're trying to argue that the mere fact God never does anything at all to protect the innocent from evil is proof of his love. This puts the confusion and chaos of Christian apologist thought on display like nothing else.

    Get saved so God can be glorified, that’s it; this is the purpose of this entire universe.

    More reciting from your script. If that is the purpose of the universe (and what a pathetic purpose it would be), then everything you've said about free will up to this point is a sham, if our only purpose is to be slavish worshippers. If that is the purpose of the universe, then God should reveal his existence unambiguously, and not have to rely on incoherent defenses from nitwits to establish said existence.

    God knew we would sin, He knew we would rebel, He knew we would introduce evil, He knew it.

    Then he is therefore responsible for all of it, QED. God is a perfect being, and therefore should not have made an imperfect ceation. The fact that his creation is imperfect either means he is imperfect, or that he wanted evil to exist, for which he could then skirt responsibility and blame humanity, offering a dishonest "redemption" through his own phony self-sacrifice on the cross, in order that he could fulfill the universe's "purpose" and be worshipped more. This sounds much more like the "dictatorship" you're attemtping to accuse me of. Once again, regurgitation of your beliefs absent of actual thought trips you up rather badly, Dan.

    If you are already willing to admit this:

    I just don’t know if there even will be free will in heaven. I know we won’t want to leave and be tempted to leave. We can appreciate Gods goodness in the presence of evil. Unlike Adam who didn’t know evil, Satan who didn’t know evil, until they fell. We do! Because of it, we so appreciate his goodness and no matter what temptation that will come our way in heaven, if that could even happen, there would be no way, why? Because we knew how horrible evil was and now we can fully appreciate his goodness.

    ...then ask yourself why God could not have simply made earth like Heaven.

    We wouldn’t know how God is righteous as he is, everlastingly, and give him glory for it if it hadn’t had of been for unrighteousness, we wouldn’t know he’s loving as he is if it hadn’t been for sin, we wouldn’t know he’s holy if it weren’t for judgment.

    Addressed and refuted in my earlier post.

    That he might make known the riches of his glory, that is, he did all of this in order that he might gather into heaven a redeemed humanity who would forever glorify him for all that he is.

    So God requires the rape of innocent children in order that his colossal ego be "glorified".

    What an evil, sick, vile being you worship, Dan. I never really knew how much I needed to pity you before. I realize it now.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Martin posed ” Of course, any omniscient, omnipotent being who really wanted to sort out the millions of issues plaguing a whole {1.}race (I assume Dan means species; of course, there's more than one of those around) could do so without lifting a finger, by an act of pure will alone. That's the whole benefit of being, you know, omni-everything!”

    {1.yes species, I was going to put universe but I narrowed it as to not overwhelm you all, I forgot the word human which just makes me one}

    Dan, we ALL notice how you DO NOT RESPOND to Martin's statement. You CHANGE THE SUBJECT.

    LIAR.

    LIAR.

    LIAR.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Martin posed ” Of course, any omniscient, omnipotent being who really wanted to sort out the millions of issues plaguing a whole human race could do so without lifting a finger, by an act of pure will alone. That's the whole benefit of being, you know, omni-everything!”


    I did adress it, read what I said: "Even Martin answered that way in his blog; Remove all free will and poof all is easy. So Martin poses a dictatorship of sorts to have a perfect heaven and no evil, interesting."

    how is this not addressing it Andrew?

    ReplyDelete
  12. I quoted you verbatim, Dan. You did not address it.

    And furthermore, free will in Christianity is an deliberate delusuion (Well, I know Calvinists admit this and somehow don't care.) Your god is described as omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent. Free will cannot exist with such a god. And the Bible freely admits this:

    God determines who is going to heaven ...

    "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48

    "For whom he did foreknow, he also did predestinate.... Moreover whom he did predestinate, them he also called: and whom he called, them he also justified: and whom he justified, them he also glorified." -- Romans 8:29-30

    "Who hath saved us, and called us with an holy calling, not according to our works, but according to his own purpose and grace, which was given us in Christ Jesus before the world began." -- 2 Timothy 1:9

    "He hath chosen us in him before the foundation of the world, that we should be holy and without blame before him in love: Having predestinated us unto the adoption of children by Jesus Christ to himself, according to the good pleasure of his will." -- Ephesians 1:4-5

    "God hath from the beginning chosen you to salvation." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:13

    and who is going to hell.

    "God shall send them strong delusion, that they should believe a lie: That they all might be damned." -- 2 Thessalonians 2:11-12

    "For there are certain men crept in unawares, who were before of old ordained to this condemnation." -- Jude 4

    There's nothing you can do about it.

    "For the children being not yet born, neither having done any good or evil, that the purpose of God according to election might stand, not of works, but of him that calleth. .... For he saith to Moses, I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion. So then it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that sheweth mercy. For the scripture saith unto Pharaoh, Even for this same purpose have I raised thee up, that I might shew my power in thee, and that my name might be declared throughout all the earth. Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction." -- Romans 9:11-22

    Source: SAB

    That is what the Bible says Dan. PREDESTINATION = NO FREE WILL

    Even if such a god existed, how is he WORTHY of devotion and worship?

    ReplyDelete
  13. I did adress it, read what I said: "Even Martin answered that way in his blog; Remove all free will and poof all is easy. So Martin poses a dictatorship of sorts to have a perfect heaven and no evil, interesting."

    how is this not addressing it Andrew?


    Because it's a straw man. I never said anything about removing free will. I pointed out that free will and action were two different things, and posed the solution that God simply could have created people without any predisposition towards pedophilia.

    As usual, your intellectual inferiority prevented you from comprehending this point.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Hmmm, seems the God Simulator is not so easily dismissed as Dan would like to believe.

    Hard to argue for the monumentally contradictory and hypocritical properties that are required to arrive at the outcome that christians proport.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Andrew,

    You said ”Free will cannot exist with such a god. And the Bible freely admits this:

    God determines who is going to heaven ...

    "And as many as were ordained to eternal life believed." -- Acts 13:48”


    You failed to put it in context again like I point out so many times. There is free will lets look at the entire passage: Acts 13:45-50

    “45But when the Jews saw the multitudes, they were filled with envy, and spake against those things which were spoken by Paul, contradicting and blaspheming. (Sounds like atheists)

    46Then Paul and Barnabas waxed bold, and said, It was necessary that the word of God should first have been spoken to you: but seeing ye put it from you, and judge yourselves unworthy of everlasting life, lo, we turn to the Gentiles.

    47For so hath the Lord commanded us, saying, I have set thee to be a light of the Gentiles, that thou shouldest be for salvation unto the ends of the earth.

    48And when the Gentiles heard this, they were glad, and glorified the word of the Lord: and as many as were ordained to eternal life believed. (true conversion)

    49And the word of the Lord was published throughout all the region.

    50But the Jews stirred up the devout and honorable women, and the chief men of the city, and raised persecution against Paul and Barnabas, and expelled them out of their coasts.” (Still the same old atheist)

    Do you understand because they hardened there own heart (free will) God can’t reveal himself to these type of people. I do agree with you that God will choose you to be written in the book of life. If you today get on your knees like you are proposing to him and ask him to clean your sinful wretched heart and commit your entire life to him and repent of all that sinning and turn away from sin forever. He will manifest himself to you; it is his promise to us. You must come to him on his terms not the other way around. You WILL be written in the book of life for eternity.

    For Him,
    Dan

    ReplyDelete
  16. tracie harris4/05/2007 3:14 PM

    Not that this hasn't been addressed previously, but...

    Free Will conflicts with Omniscience. If anyone or anything knows everything I'm going to do before I do it--what are we calling "free will"? The choices before me aren't choices in that case, because I _must_ do what the omniscient deity has already seen I will do. Literally, an omniscient god knew my whole life--every second of it--before I was ever even born and lived it. Where is my free will in that model?

    Can I choose otherwise? If I do, then god was wrong about what he foresaw. So, I cannot choose anything other than what was foreordained since time began.

    It's a choice:

    Free Will OR Omniscience

    Both cannot exist in the same universe.

    ReplyDelete

PLEASE NOTE: The Atheist Experience has moved to a new location, and this blog is now closed to comments. To participate in future discussions, please visit http://www.freethoughtblogs.com/axp.

This blog encourages believers who disagree with us to comment. However, anonymous comments are disallowed to weed out cowardly flamers who hide behind anonymity. Commenters will only be banned when they've demonstrated they're nothing more than trolls whose behavior is intentionally offensive to the blog's readership.

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.