• Best of luck to the class of 2024 for their HSC exams. You got this!
    Let us know your thoughts on the HSC exams here
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page
MedVision ad

Does God exist? (11 Viewers)

do you believe in god?


  • Total voters
    1,568

SylviaB

Just Bee Yourself 🐝
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
6,877
Location
Lidcombe
Gender
Female
HSC
2021
1. He is omnipotent, he could make them instantly without needing evolution (or needing to spend 7 days or whatever other unit of time you try and rationalise as valid.)

2. Evolution is exactly the reason why we are "sinful". It is because of evolution we pursue our own self-interest, we have a desire to have sex with anyone/everyone etc.
At least creationism makes sense in this regard; in creationism, humans betrayed god and hence became impure, making entry into heaven no longer guaranteed.

With evolution, however, man's nature emerged naturally, because this self-interested behaviour is that which is best for one's survival i.e. the people contributing to the next generation's gene pool were the ones who did what was best for their survival, and so the next generation will share these traits.

This makes no sense in regads to christianity. We are not "bad" because we betrayed god, we are bad because of the way evolution works. God condemns us for acting this way, and yet it was GOD HIMSELF who "made" evolution and hence made us the way we are.

the bible always talks about how we should act the way we would act had adam and eve not betrayed god, but if god made evolution, this can't be the case. There is no "pure" example of humans. it means that god would want us to act in a way that simply opposes our inherent nature, the way GOD MADE US, rather than what the bible says, the way OUR BETRAYING of god made us.


3. >99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. For the vast majority of the billions of humans and their ancestors (let alone pretty much all living creatures in history)
who have ever lived, life was short, painful and miserable, as they were weeded out as part of god's evolution. And for what? Why would god cause so much unnecessary pain and suffering and death to make humans?


Your religion is stupid.

Either it is inconsistent with reality (creationism) or it makes absolutely zero sense (god using evolution).

Take your pick.
 
Last edited:

LachieM

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
31
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
see my response to the next bit



we have already had this discussion, sea levels cannot rise all that far above where they currently are, it was most likely caused by a tsunami or something if the flood did indeed happen..I believe that if you search back a couple of pages, you'll find a post where i outlined that most religious scholars outside of the USA don't regard the old testament as pure fact...its a myth, not meant to be entirely literal although often mis-interpreted that way.
A tsunami that covered the entire planet including the highest mountains, extending 20 feet above such mountains? The Bible is far too specific in some places it to be taken metaphorically. How do you metaphorically interpret "all the high mountains under the entire heavens...were covered to a depth of 20 feet"? If the only answer you can come up with (I can't come up with any others) is "God has different conceptions of length: to him, all the heavens include only a remote portion of the Middle East and 20 feet above the highest mountains is just a large hill" or something along those lines then you are on very thin ice indeed.

where does the bible completely rule out evolution..I'm not going to try and misinterpret a passage to say evolution is real but i do challenge you to find one where it says its false.
I'm not saying it does, although the add-on of "according to their kinds" in each reference to life's creation does imply to me at least that living things were created not as tiny, simple organisms but as the full blown "birds" and "creatures of the land and sea" that we see today. Part of the problem with the Bible is that it's so open to interpretation as to make effective criticism very difficult. But what do you think is more likely?

A) Your subjective interpretation of a certain passage does not reflect the actual intentions of the writers, who were merely trying (and failing, miserably) to piece together an explanation of the universe with what little they knew.

B) That God, in his omniscience, was able to inspire a group of primitive desert people with little more knowledge of evolution, physics and chemistry than the animals that they ritually sacrificed, with not only the knowledge of the formation of the universe, but also the uncanny ability to write in very subtle allegory and critique such writings with the 20th Century literary movement of New Criticism.

i'm giving a reason why it is possible, not saying its likely...of course it is a reality
I could easily give a similar reason to why I think it's possible that an indestructible speck of dust in my bedroom right now guided evolution as well. If I specify that it's an omniscient and omnipotent speck of dust then it makes it just as likely as your claim. But it really doesn't contribute anything, does it? There's no point adding things to systems which don't need them, just for the sake of doing so.

I mostly agree with this, it's perfectly plausible. It does seem a bit pointless, but ultimately it still works.
 

LachieM

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
31
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
1. He is omnipotent, he could make them instantly without needing evolution (or needing to spend 7 days or whatever other unit of time you try and rationalise as valid.)

2. Evolution is exactly the reason why we are "sinful". It is because of evolution we pursue our own self-interest, we have a desire to have sex with anyone/everyone etc.
At least creationism makes sense in this regard; in creationism, humans betrayed god and hence became impure, making entry into heaven no longer guaranteed.

With evolution, however, man's nature emerged naturally, because this self-interested behaviour is that which is best for one's survival i.e. the people contributing to the next generation's gene pool were the ones who did what was best for their survival, and so the next generation will share these traits.

This makes no sense in regads to christianity. We are not "bad" because we betrayed god, we are bad because of the way evolution works. God condemns us for acting this way, and yet it was GOD HIMSELF who "made" evolution and hence made us the way we are. ;)


3. >99% of species that have ever existed are extinct. For the vast majority of the billions of humans and their ancestors (let alone pretty much all living creatures in history)
who have ever lived, life was short, painful and miserable, as they were weeded out as part of god's evolution. And for what? Why would god cause so much unnecessary pain and suffering and death to make humans?


Your religion is stupid.

Either it is inconsistent with reality (creationism) or it makes absolutely zero sense (god using evolution).

Take your pick.
I agree with all of this, but it is still explainable in terms of Christianity. God making us bad and expecting us to be good is extremely immoral, yes, but Christians will argue (if they believe free will can exist if God does) that we have the free will to go against this impulse, or if they admit that free will cannot exist in such a scenario, it is ultimately part of "God's plan".

On the point of all the extinct species, again, Christians would argue it is part of God's plan.

Very feeble arguments, yes. But ultimately your points are explainable in terms of the Christian faith.

The whole system, like you point out, is extremely immoral, and quite illogical (although not cripplingly so, except in the case of Christians believing in free will), but I think we all know from experience that most theists find ways to work their way around all this.
 
Last edited:

mattd259

New Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
22
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Hey LachieM, sorry I didnt reply sooner, i've been a bit busy lately.

I read your continued discussion with gedi master... You think that Gedi master and I both have a major problem in that we dont understand your arguments. Well, supposing that is true, lets make this easier for both of us. If you dont mind, could you set out your argument in a more formal, summarised structure. Set it out by setting out your argument in a number of clearly defined, simple, well set out premises, each one following on from the one before it, to a conlcusion. For example,

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

Each premise doesnt have to be fully explained in this form, it is just a clear way of arriving to a conclusion. you can set it out this way, then below you can provide a detailed explanation for each one of your points. This way, your argument can be set out such that there is no misunderstanding on either side. If it is clear enough, Gedi master and i can learn from your wisdom, or alternatively, we can pinpoint exactly where we we have a problem with your argument: we can disagree with one of your premises, or we can try to show that your premises dont logically follow because of some sort of fallacy (begging the question, straw man etc.) Either way, the discussion becomes clearer and we might just get to understanding eachother. Who knows, either one or both of us might even come out of this discussion wiser :). Fair enough?
 
Last edited:

LachieM

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
31
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Hey LachieM, sorry I didnt reply sooner, i've been a bit busy lately.

I read your continued discussion with gedi master... You think that Gedi master and I both have a major problem in that we dont understand your arguments. Well, supposing that is true, lets make this easier for both of us. If you dont mind, could you set out your argument in a more formal, summarised structure. Set it out by setting out your argument in a number of clearly defined, simple, well set out premises, each one following on from the one before it, to a conlcusion. For example,

1. All men are mortal
2. Socrates is a man
3. Therefore Socrates is mortal

Each premise doesnt have to be fully explained in this form, it is just a clear way of arriving to a conclusion. you can set it out this way, then below you can provide a detailed explanation for each one of your points. This way, your argument can be set out such that there is no misunderstanding on either side. If it is clear enough, Gedi master and i can learn from your wisdom, or alternatively, we can pinpoint exactly where we we have a problem with your argument: we can disagree with one of your premises, or we can try to show that your premises dont logically follow because of some sort of fallacy (begging the question, straw man etc.) Either way, the discussion becomes clearer and we might just get to understanding eachother. Who knows, either one or both of us might even come out of this discussion wiser :). Fair enough?
Righto.

1. Something must be true to be knowledge (epistemological definition).
2. God is all-knowing. All he knows is true.
3. God knows the future of every one of us.
4. Therefore, the future of every one of us has one, true path, in accordance with God's knowledge of our future. Any other path would be false as it would not be in accordance with God's knowledge (see point 1).
5. There is only one possible way the future can go; no matter what happens, the future will go that way, in accordance with God's knowledge (see point 1).
6. We don't have the freedom to go along any path other than the one God has determined (this is the only path that exists), according to his knowledge (see point 1).
7. Free will does not exist. Time must unfold in one way and in one way only, and nothing we do can change that. We must continue through time, but we are fixed to the one true path that God's knowledge allows, as any other path would be false, according to God's knowledge. There is no place where free will can exist. Hence my "path" analogy. The only way around it is to invalidate God's omniscience, which was our base assumption.
 
Last edited:

mattd259

New Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
22
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
"1. Something must be true to be knowledge (epistemological definition).
2. God is all-knowing. All he knows is true.
3. God knows the future of every one of us."

Everything is ok up til here. What would logically follow from this is that our futures are true.

i agree with 4 too. It is true that what God knows of the future must be true, since God is omniscient.

Point 5 is where i have a problem. You say that "There is only one possible way the future can go". This is not true. There is only one possible way that the future WILL go! The future CAN go an infinite number of ways. Do you see the difference? The way the future WILL go, is what is "true" in the same sense of the word that was used in your argument. btw, we should define what "true" really means. In this discussion, i suppose what is "true" means what is REAL, or what occurs is reality. fair enough? So the way the future will go is the way that occurs in reality. Where the future CAN go refers to every possible future that can occur (the are billions of them), but only one of them will occur in reality. This is not to say that only 1 future is possible as you say in point 5. Many futures are possible. The thing here is that only 1 future occurs in reality. Which one occurs, however, does not depend on God's knowledge, but on OUR FREE WILL.

I think we agree, that what God knows corresponds to reality. So let me ask you this. Does something occur in reality as a consequence God knowing it, or does God know it because it occurs in reality? Which is the cause and which is the effect? The latter is the correct answer. God only knows an event will occur, because the event really does occur OBJECTIVELY in reality. God's knowledge depends on reality, reality does not depend on Gods knowledge. Reality is the cause, God's knowledge of it is the effect.

Even your epistemological definition of knowledge confirms this. For something to be known, one of the conditions is that there must be sufficient evidence for it. But evidence is something that must exist external to ones self. So for God to know something, he must have something external to himself that justifies his knowledge, namely what occurs in reality. therefore Gods knowledge depends on evidence, and the evidence is part of reality, therefore God's knowledge depends on reality. The alternative to this can not possibly occur. Suppose that evidence came from internal knowledge. You have already established that evidence is essential for one to know anything. so if knowlege comes from evidence (as you said), and evidence comes from knowlege (assumed) then that is just plain circular reasoning, which is logically fallacious. Proof by contradiction.

Therefore God's knowledge is determined by reality, and not vice versa. Since reality cant be determined by Gods knowledge, then reality must be determined by something else. This something else is OUR FREE WILL.

So the only reason God knows our future choices will occur, is because
1. God knows reality
2. God's knowledge is subject to reality (past, present or future)
3. Reality's path is subject to our choices.
4. Therefore God's knowlege of the future is subject to our choices
5. Therefore free will and God are compatible.
 
Last edited:

ibbi00

Member
Joined
Sep 6, 2009
Messages
771
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
What about the infamous golden ratio? Or is that just another one of those 'sheer coincidences'?
 
Last edited:

Scorch

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
564
Location
Marayong
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
But the one claiming that God does not exist is also making a positive claim. The only one that bears no burden of proof is the one who simply "lacks belief" in God.

Do you see the problem your rationale faces here? You too are asserting something about the actual state of reality (namely that God does not exist) yet you are not providing proof to show that such a reality is true.
No, I'm not. I'll try and clarify here; I'm not stating that God doesn't exist as a matter of fact. I am stating that there is no objective evidence that God exists. This is acknowledged by both of us. From there, I am saying that it is not unreasonable to believe he probably doesn't exist, as we take that rational approach to almost every other deity and scientific concept. I add that, when there is no evidence to suggest that an entity exists, it is rational not to claim knowledge that one possibly cannot have (that such an entity exists).

So in the absence of any evidence, I assert that I believe God probably doesn't exist, and even if he did I would assert that we have no way of knowing the slightest thing about him or his nature, let alone anything meaningful about his intentions and personality.

It is not a positive claim in the sense that you think; I do not say "God doesn't exist". I operate on the idea that if there is no evidence for an entities existence, and the phenomena attributed to that entity over the past several thousand years can be demonstrably understood by completely natural means, then it's safe enough to operate, on a level of personal belief, that he probably doesn't exist. However it it imperative that one understand that it is not a scientifically verifiable argument.

The only claims I am making are that there is no evidence to suggest that God exists and that the vast majority of phenomena once attributed to his 'wrath' or 'pleasure' are now explicable as entirely natural occurrences, and these are both factually verifiable. Where I think we differ is, in terms of ontology, what the logical implications of these are.

Why not? Isn't that exactly what you are trying to do by pointing out logical inconsistencies in various conceptions or forms of God?
No. I am showing why the idea of a loving, intervening God is problematic and I find it rather irrational, not a God himself.

God is omnipotent, omnibenevolent and omniscient: God is all-powerful and knows everything including the best way to bring about the greatest good. God's greatest good isn't synonymous with human flourishing and happiness but instead includes bringing the maximum amount of people possible into relationship and knowledge of him (such a relationship could also facilitate Gods desire to raise responsible moral agents). Human suffering as the result of natural evil could facilitate humans in coming into relationship with God and/or the raising of responsible moral agents. Thus is it entirely possible that God has morally sufficient reasons for allowing natural evil to exist in the world.
I would be stupid to say I did not anticipate this point, but I find it no more convincing and absolutely morally despicable.

Can you attempt to explain to me why an omnipotent God would need to kill 200,000 poor, East Asian peasants, most of whom aren't Christian so are going to hell as far as Christianity is concerned (thus there is no reward in any next life either), in order to do anything? He wouldn't That the drawback of omnipotence, you don't need to do anything in order to accomplish anything. There is nothing that forces God to use human suffering in order to do anything, as he is omnipotent and could thus accomplish it without human suffering.

The fact that he apparently regularly chooses to do things via human suffering when he is omnipotent and thus entirely capable of doing things without the suffering of his powerless creations is irreconcilable with any idea of God being benevolent.

Three words, "In the beginning"-Genesis 1.1....there is no time frame given in the bible whatsoever...The bible states that humans came from clay, perhaps it means the bacterium that would have been present in the clay as ancient Hebrew has no word for bacteria (that i know of anyway). The time frame is given as days but, to an eternal being, th concept of a day may be very different to our concept of a day. To God, 1 day may be any period of time at all. If we came from the bacterium, God may have slowly evolved us from our primordial form.
Yes. Three out of thousands of thousands of words. This is getting really fucking tiring, the fact that you point to one passage that can be vaguely and absurdly interpreted as not being completely and utterly irrational even to the scientific understanding of a modern high school student does not excuse the other dozens of basic scientific, historical and factual mistakes the Bible makes. You, however, do this over and over as though it actually proves something.

Even if I am to contend that your interpretation, which is poorly reasoned and extremely vague, makes sense, what you essentially have is one time where the Bible can be sort of interpreted as not being completely wrong as opposed to dozens where it can.

we have already had this discussion, sea levels cannot rise all that far above where they currently are, it was most likely caused by a tsunami or something if the flood did indeed happen..I believe that if you search back a couple of pages, you'll find a post where i outlined that most religious scholars outside of the USA don't regard the old testament as pure fact...its a myth, not meant to be entirely literal although often mis-interpreted that way.
This in no way helps your point. What you are doing is admitting that terrified peasants, witnessing a perfectly natural event, were so confused, baffled and mystified that stories quickly circulated based on a primitive and flawed understanding of nature that brought God into the picture. They saw what was likely a tsunami or localized flood, and invented stories to explain it in the lack of any real, logical explanation.

What is your point? You've really just shed more light on the primitive origins of such beliefs.



Going to reiterate this, as well:
I would also love to take this opportunity to point out the irony of the fact that when we question the morality of God ordering for entire people to be wiped out for trivial things or ordering that women be put to death if they are raped, we are confronted with "We puny humans are in no position to understand the thought processes of the omnipotent God", yet when it suits theists, they are happy to tell us the intricacies and most nuanced details about exactly what God knows, how he knows it and his entire understanding of temporality and determinism down to the most minute details.​
 
Last edited:

LachieM

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
31
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
"1. Something must be true to be knowledge (epistemological definition).
2. God is all-knowing. All he knows is true.
3. God knows the future of every one of us."

Everything is ok up til here. What would logically follow from this is that our futures are true.

i agree with 4 too. It is true that what God knows of the future must be true, since God is omniscient.
I'm glad we agree here.

Point 5 is where i have a problem. You say that "There is only one possible way the future can go". This is not true. There is only one possible way that the future WILL go! The future CAN go an infinite number of ways. Do you see the difference? The way the future WILL go, is what is "true" in the same sense of the word that was used in your argument. btw, we should define what "true" really means. In this discussion, i suppose what is "true" means what is REAL, or what occurs is reality. fair enough? What the future CAN be refers to every possible future that can occur, but only one of them will occur in reality. This is not to say that only 1 future is possible as you say in point 5. Many futures are possible. The thing here is that only 1 future occurs in reality. Which one, however, does not depend on God's knowlege, but on OUR FREE WILL.
Most of this is an argument on semantics. I agree with what you mean by what "will" happen though. It's certainly a more suiting word and in hindsight I should have used that to avoid this confusion. I would also agree that the future "can" hypothetically go an infinite number of ways, but ultimately it only will go the one way according to God's knowledge, which I think you agree with. On the definition of truth and the surrounding argument, I will save it until I get clarification on the question I make in my next paragraph.

I think we agree, that what God knows corresponds to reality. So let me ask you this. Does something occur in reality as a consequence God knowing it, or does God know it because it occurs in reality? The latter is the correct answer. God only knows an event will occur, because the event really does occur OBJECTIVELY in reality. God's knowlege depends on reality, reality does not depend on Gods knowlege.

Even your epistemological definition of knowlege confirms this. For something to be known, one of the conditions is that there must be sufficient evidence for it. But evidence is something that must exist external to ones self. So for God to know something, he must have something external to himself that justifies his knowlege, namely what occurs in reality. therefore Gods knowlege depends on evidence, and the evidence is part of reality, therefore God's knowlege depends on reality. The alternative to this can not possibly occur. Suppose that evidence came from internal knowlege. You have already established that evidence is essential for one to know anything. so if knowlege comes from evidence (as you said), and evidence comes from knowlege (assumed) then that is just plain circular reasoning, which is logically fallacious. Proof by contradiction.

Therefore God's knowlege is determined by reality, and not vice versa. Since reality cant be determined by Gods knowlege, then reality must be determined by something else. This something else is OUR FREE WILL.

So the only reason God knows our future choices will occur, is because
1. God knows reality
2. God's knowlege is subject to reality
3. Reality's path depends on our choices.
4. Therefore God and free will are compatible.
This is a superb argument. Seriously. But it is all hinged on the idea that God's knowledge is a product of reality, and not the other way around. This relates back to omniscience, I think. You've genuinely thrown me off here. I would like to ask you, is omniscience an intrinsic property of God?
 

LachieM

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
31
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
No it's not, it's entirely circular and self-referential.
The argument that God's knowledge, if derived from reality rather than the other way around, seems quite good to me. I'm not sure on the argument for God's knowledge being derived from reality, but if this is considered a base assumption it works extremely well, I think.
 

mattd259

New Member
Joined
Oct 19, 2009
Messages
22
Gender
Male
HSC
2010
Hey LachieM,

"is omniscience an intrinsic property of God? "

If your take the definition of God to "the neccessary first cause", then i think this paragraph from Peter Kreeft explains it pretty well.

"To say that God is omniscient, and omnipotent means that there can be no real barriers to God's knowing or acting. Apart from himself, God has created everything there is to be known, and sustains it in being. So is it concievable that there is something he could not know or have power over?"

So basically, he is saying that if God created everything that exists and sustains it in existence (which he has done, since he is the necessary first cause, the prime mover), then he created everything that could possibly be known. So then, how is it that he can be ignorant of something that he himself put into existence? He can't. That is why he is omniscient.
 

LachieM

Member
Joined
Jul 21, 2009
Messages
31
Gender
Male
HSC
2009
Hey LachieM,

"is omniscience an intrinsic property of God? "

If your take the definition of God to "the neccessary first cause", then i think this paragraph from Peter Kreeft explains it pretty well.

"To say that God is omniscient, and omnipotent means that there can be no real barriers to God's knowing or acting. Apart from himself, God has created everything there is to be known, and sustains it in being. So is it concievable that there is something he could not know or have power over?"

So basically, he is saying that if God created everything that exists and sustains it in existence (which he has done, since he is the necessary first cause, the prime mover), then he created everything that could possibly be known. So then, how is it that he can be ignorant of something that he himself put into existence? He can't. That is why he is omniscient.
So why would it be wrong to say that reality is derived from his knowledge instead of the other way around? Your argument on how his evidence must be derived from an external source, namely the universe itself, is excluding the fact that he made the universe and thus would know everything about it from the moment of its conception. Indeed, he would've known it before he made the universe, regardless of where his evidence came from, implying that the universe would have to be exactly that way no matter what.

Your argument seems self-defeating in this sense. You create exactly the kind of cyclical system that you were accusing me of. You state that God gains his evidence from the universe; a reasonable point. But you fail to address that this knowledge feeds through to when he created the universe itself. Regardless of where his evidence comes from, he has a certain vision of the universe, which is reflected perfectly in his creation of it. Again, it couldn't have been any other way. All you point out in the argument that he derives his evidence from reality is that he observes reality unfold exactly as he created it to.

The fact that he created the universe with this knowledge is unavoidable, so the fact that the universe must unfold according to this knowledge is also unavoidable - he cannot conceivably have created it in any other way. Again, regardless of our "choices" we are bound to this universe and the universe is bound to this knowledge, which like it or not, is unchanging and is not fluid about anything we do.

Perhaps the reason you accuse me of circular reasoning is because the system we are describing is intrinsically cyclical. Even with your argument taken into account, God derives knowledge from the universe, and with this creates the universe to reflect this. The universe must unfold according to this knowledge, lest it not be knowledge at all and violate our base assumption. If free will exists, it exists only in the sense that we "choose" the only path which is laid out before us, as there is no other way to go, which I wouldn't regard as free will at all.

So yes. My argument is circular; both of ours are. But only in the sense that the system we are trying to describe is intrinsically cyclical.
 
Last edited:

BradCube

Active Member
Joined
May 16, 2005
Messages
1,288
Location
Charlestown
Gender
Male
HSC
2006
As promised, I just wrapped up a paper on theological fatalism for those interested. It's a quick read (3 pages). I hope it proves to be of some use in clarifying my position. :)
 
Last edited:

Scorch

Member
Joined
Feb 14, 2006
Messages
564
Location
Marayong
Gender
Male
HSC
2007
As promised, I just wrapped up a paper on theological fatalism for those interested. It's a quick read (3 pages). I hope it proves to be of some use in clarifying my position. :)
Interesting. Again, I find the position extremely semantic and an attempt to find a distinction where I don't see there to be one on the large scale.

Statements such as this, however:
It is fallacious to infer that x will necessarily happen. It simply will happen. It is entirely possible for x to fail to happen. If it were to fail to happen, God would not have foreknown x to begin with. From God's foreknowledge of x, we can be absolutely certain that x will occur. But, it does not have to occur; it is possible for it to fail to occur.​

... make no sense. You cannot have your cake and eat it too. What I understood from your previous posts was that you were asserting that simply because God knows x will happen does not presuppose anything about his knowledge of how, why or when it will happen, and that it is entirely possible that he knows if x, y and z occur then one event will happen, and if another combination occur then another event will happen; that is that he understands all possibilities. I found this to be a reasonable way of dealing with this particular problem, which is why I noted that I didn't really find it to be a problem with ideas of a creator, and that there were more serious issues to address.

Also, William Lane Craig is an entirely educated fool, and little more than a particularly eloquent idiot, in my reckoning.
 

-Lemon-

Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2010
Messages
84
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
As promised, I just wrapped up a paper on theological fatalism for those interested. It's a quick read (3 pages). I hope it proves to be of some use in clarifying my position. :)
garbage, all of it.
Now concede defeat to your atheist masters and leave it at that.
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 11)

Top