Freewill

[FallentoReason]

I'm just wondering.. I keep mentioning that the person that saved you lot most likely didn't exist. Logically this should be one of the BIGGEST points you guys should be arguing against because your faith hinges on that man's existence. It doesn't matter how well you can construct reality based on theology because without the pillar, who is Jesus, the whole structure comes crashing down.

Simple as that.

There is more than enough evidence that Jesus Christ existed. You can start the ball rolling by reading the Bible. 1 Corinthians 15:14-19.

Quoting Paul who never met Jesus isn't really the best start.

EDIT: ironically YOUR ball will stop rolling once you do your historical research on the scriptures you read everyday.

[Phil]

I'm just wondering.. I keep mentioning that the person that saved you lot most likely didn't exist. Logically this should be one of the BIGGEST points you guys should be arguing against because your faith hinges on that man's existence. It doesn't matter how well you can construct reality based on theology because without the pillar, who is Jesus, the whole structure comes crashing down.

Simple as that.

There is more than enough evidence that Jesus Christ existed. You can start the ball rolling by reading the Bible. 1 Corinthians 15:14-19.

Please don't make me laugh. BTW, you have your error posted in your "Methodist Midst" thread. Now go read it, then mourn your fallible bible or are you gonna do the christotard retreat?

edit: Why are idiot christoholics too dense to understand the bible is the claim not the evidence?

[Christian]

Quoting Paul who never met Jesus isn't really the best start.

But we do believe that God inspired him to write.

[KichigaiNeko]

No one that supports it ever actually READS it nor any other fairy story made by man...they are not encouraged to.

[genkaus]

Quoting Paul who never met Jesus isn't really the best start.

But we do believe that God inspired him to write.

No, we don't.

[KichigaiNeko]

As far as I know Paul was a homosexual drug addict....mushrooms??

could be wrong there...Min??

[FallentoReason]

Quoting Paul who never met Jesus isn't really the best start.

But we do believe that God inspired him to write.

Just like Mohammed believes he chilled out in heaven.

EDIT: that is to say, you can't show me why I should believe Paul over e.g. Mohammed. You're just assuming now.

[Christian]

Just like Mohammed believes he chilled out in heaven.

Mohammed was a lier. He used the old testament to make his own version of the holy book and his religion of Islam. Islam is a false religion based on a false God.

[FallentoReason]

Just like Mohammed believes he chilled out in heaven.

Mohammed was a lier. He used the old testament to make his own version of the holy book and his religion of Islam. Islam is a false religion based on a false God.

Just like the people that we now call Christians used the OT to create a messiah that ticked all the boxes. Both can be shown to be false therefore neither has got it right. Unless we can start by finding Jesus in history.

[NoMoreFaith]

why? Even if God knows what you will choose it does not effect your choice. Remember The Choice being the relinquishing of one sin. So that your will and God's will are one.

Free Will, is the ability to choose between different alternatives without coercion.
In order for free will to exist, there must be doubt about the outcome of the alternatives, otherwise your choice is default, predestined.
Whether its your choice or not, you have no alternatives, this is the choice you were always going to make, from the start of time itself. That's the classic definition of determinism.

Think of it this way, if you watch a movie you have already seen, you emulate prescience. Do the characters in the movie have free will, or the illusion of free will they make on the screen?
Clearly there is no free will in the movie, and likewise, if God knows your choices, then your choices were never between alternatives.
Thus, the premise that God has given us free will undeniably false.

I'm sure you have an answer for that, and we can move on to whether God has free will, which is always fun.

We need to eliminate that term for the sake of confusion, Let me put it this way: God can not sin because Sin is anything outside of the Expressed will of God. God can not be outside of His own will because anything and everything He does is by definition in the will of God.

No, I don't think we should eliminate that term. Merely because by definition it is the lack of coercion in choice between alternatives.
Does God have choices? Yes.
Can God be Coerced? No.
Therefore God must have free will.

Let's return to our video. If God can see all time simultaneously, then God cannot change his mind nor does he need to.
This is because God is supposedly infallible. All his choices are the Right™ choice because it is the will of God.
Do we agree so far?

Now God cannot change, he is supposed to be Perfect, and perfect requires no change.
Thought itself requires a change of state, you cannot have a thought without a change or conscious movement from one state of thought to another.
Therefore God cannot think. It denies perfection to consider that God can think, and therefore improve a thought process. You cannot improve perfection.

He cannot change, he cannot improve, he cannot think, he cannot choose. What a weak beast is this God of man.

Your argument leads that, if God exists, he is coerced by his own definition of perfection, and cannot have free will.
What appears to be the case is that you argue that perfection is defined by Gods decisions, rather than the other way round.

Interesting paradox by the way, in form of a fun word game,
If God is a perfect creator, then his perfect achievement is made greater by the disabilities overcome to create, there is no greater disability than non-existence, therefore God does not exist. Fun eh.