Evidence?

[fr0d0]

I already explained that if god gave us freewill, we should be allowed to decide for ourselves what we want, what we want to believe, how we want to lead our lives. That is the concept of freewill, is it not?

"made or done freely or of one's own accord; voluntary"

We should be free to choose, but this supposed god condemns us for not believing in him. This is why I say he is indecisive.

Well I've addressed these once and you ignored me. Let me try again then...

You're assuming 'God' and the Christian faith, which you at the same time deny. How can the conditions of a faith you deny have any bearing on you? You cannot conflate the two and criticise the position of belief from non belief. Either you criticise from the belief or you evaluate your own position from that position.

Where does God ever say our choice to disobey him will be to our benefit? To be indecisive he would have
to have said both. He never does. You do. You define free choice independently from God.


Second point ignored as it's completely irrelevant.

[Retorth]

You're assuming 'God' and the Christian faith, which you at the same time deny. How can the conditions of a faith you deny have any bearing on you?

It does not have any bearing on me but is it wrong to learn about it anyway?

You cannot conflate the two and criticise the position of belief from non belief. Either you criticise from the belief or you evaluate your own position from that position.

If that is the case, you too cannot criticize the position of non belief since you are in the position of belief, agreeable?

Where does God ever say our choice to disobey him will be to our benefit? To be indecisive he would have to have said both. He never does. You do. You define free choice independently from God.

Of course he never says it is beneficial to disobey him. He always says it is to your benefit to obey him and love him and believe in him. That, he is not indecisive on. Clearly he is confident in his stand that we must believe in him. It is his condemnation of non-believers while giving free will that leads me to the conclusion that he is indecisive. Perhaps it is not indecisiveness but a sadistic nature of his. I could be wrong.

Second point ignored as it's completely irrelevant.

LOL of course its "irrelevant" isn't it.

[fr0d0]

You're assuming 'God' and the Christian faith, which you at the same time deny. How can the conditions of a faith you deny have any bearing on you?

It does not have any bearing on me but is it wrong to learn about it anyway?

That in Christian terms you are a sinner has no bearing on your life outside Christian terms.

You cannot conflate the two and criticise the position of belief from non belief. Either you criticise from the belief or you evaluate your own position from that position.

If that is the case, you too cannot criticize the position of non belief since you are in the position of belief, agreeable?

I don't think you get it. It's the mixing of the two concepts together as if they were the same thing to be where the confusion arises, that is what I am saying you are doing. eg: I am a sinner (Christian definition) so I can't have Free will (Secular definition).

Where does God ever say our choice to disobey him will be to our benefit? To be indecisive he would have to have said both. He never does. You do. You define free choice independently from God.

Of course he never says it is beneficial to disobey him. He always says it is to your benefit to obey him and love him and believe in him. That, he is not indecisive on. Clearly he is confident in his stand that we must believe in him. It is his condemnation of non-believers while giving free will that leads me to the conclusion that he is indecisive. Perhaps it is not indecisiveness but a sadistic nature of his. I could be wrong.

So god to you is either indecisive or sadistic. This is not the definition of the Christian God so you must be talking about another god you made up.

Either that or your conclusion is flawed.

What is your opinion of my heroin example above? In that scenario are you still free to choose even though you know very well one choice will be very bad for you? You didn't address it.

Second point ignored as it's completely irrelevant.

LOL of course its "irrelevant" isn't it.

Well I never said such a thing. I have never asked you to prove a negative. I have no idea why you said it.

[Retorth]

Alright, there is no such thing as free will then. Lets see, god is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent. (Please, correct me if I am wrong) If so, he knows whats going to happen and how everything will eventually turn out then.

If a baby is born deformed with one arm missing, or perhaps born with an additional finger or toe, does the baby choose this? Obviously not. God must have planned for it to happen then, yes? All in god's wonderous plan.

[quote='fr0d0]So god to you is either indecisive or sadistic. This is not the definition of the Christian God so you must be talking about another god you made up.

If I do not believe in the idea or concept of god(s), why would I want to create one? That seems so very bizaare.

What is your opinion of my heroin example above? In that scenario are you still free to choose even though you know very well one choice will be very bad for you?

You didn't address it.

I hadn't realized that I missed addressing it. My humble apologies.

With regards to your heroin example,

If you desire heroin you can have it. You know it'll screw you up but that doesn't stop you choosing it. So you're saying you have no free will when it comes to buying heroin?

As I said above, god is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent so he would have known I was going to take that heroin and it would have been part of his ultimate plan as everything else is.

[fr0d0]

Alright, there is no such thing as free will then. Lets see, god is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent. (Please, correct me if I am wrong) If so, he knows whats going to happen and how everything will eventually turn out then.

If a baby is born deformed with one arm missing, or perhaps born with an additional finger or toe, does the baby choose this? Obviously not. God must have planned for it to happen then, yes? All in god's wonderous plan.[/quote Wrote:What on earth has that got to do with our conversation here?? Or the point you quote to reply to??? I don't think I should address it here (it's been addressed many times already recently anyway).

[quote='fr0d0]So god to you is either indecisive or sadistic. This is not the definition of the Christian God so you must be talking about another god you made up.

If I do not believe in the idea or concept of god(s), why would I want to create one? That seems so very bizaare.

Nonetheless you made one up!

If you desire heroin you can have it. You know it'll screw you up but that doesn't stop you choosing it. So you're saying you have no free will when it comes to buying heroin?

As I said above, god is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent so he would have known I was going to take that heroin and it would have been part of his ultimate plan as everything else is.

The point is you answer the question without invoking God. Does it mean that you do not have free will to buy and use Heroin solely because you know it will be harmful to you?

[Edwardo Piet]

That would be some pretty amazing technology. Faith I suppose. When you start talking about super advanced aliens though it isn't such a big leap to God.

So,

1. How, with 'Faith', can "God" be distinguished from a super advanced Alien pretending to be God? It could be utterly indistinguishable.

2. It may not be a big leap of Faith, from the way people conventionally think. But rationally thinking, the thing is - as I have said: God is much less likely than the Alien because the Alien actually has an explanation, Evolution, whereas "God" is simply said to be there from the beginning (or before the beginning - 'outside time itself', 'non-temporal'), or even to have created himself. This completely lacks explanation, unlike the super advanced Alien that is indistinguishable form him.

EvF

[lilphil1989]

I don't think can test God Himself since He is outside spacetime.

What a fantastically baseless assertion

[theVOID]

I don't think can test God Himself since He is outside spacetime.

What a fantastically baseless assertion

Well said

[fr0d0]

I don't think can test God Himself since He is outside spacetime.

What a fantastically baseless assertion

Well said

Saying "God is outside spacetime" might be a baseless assertion. However, saying "I don't think you can test (God himself as He is outside spacetime)" doesn't actually make an assertion. The statement deals with the point that God isn't asserted and therefore can't be tested.

so... fantastically baseless derision both of you

[theVOID]

I don't think can test God Himself since He is outside spacetime.

What a fantastically baseless assertion

Well said

Saying "God is outside spacetime" might be a baseless assertion. However, saying "I don't think you can test (God himself as He is outside spacetime)" doesn't actually make an assertion. The statement deals with the point that God isn't asserted and therefore can't be tested.

so... fantastically baseless derision both of you

Saying God is outside space time is a baseless assertion and is a bad enough statement to make to begin with, but when this baseless assertion is used as a foundation of apologetics it makes it even more ridiculous, it demonstrates how poor the case for God is.