(June 22, 2017 at 10:06 am)Khemikal Wrote: It -is- your position that god has free will. That he's not some mindless automaton locked into a future course of action.
Yes, and that's obvious, so why did you ask?
Quote:You -do- accept the premise that god is willful.
Yep.
Quote:Again, you believe in it as a matter of christer faith. -We- don't have a problem, you do.
I don't hold that omniscience precludes free will for anyone, so no, I don't have a problem in saying that God is omniscient and has free will. Succubus has a problem.
Quote:No, I don't, because it would be retarded to ask an -atheist- if they believed in god.
Likewise, it's retarded to ask a Christian if they think God is a mindless automaton, so you show yourself to be retarded.
Quote:Mysterious ways...
I.e. no reason.
Quote:but that;s the whole point, I don;t have to propose any reason that god is limited in a way that isn;t contained within the proposition.
The proposition is that a being whose future actions are known does not have free will, and that God is omniscient, and so knows all future actions of everything, including himself. It's contained in the proposition. If you want to argue that these definitions of omniscience and free will don't apply to God, you need to provide some reasoning for the difference and explanation of how the mechanics change.
Quote:-I'm- saying exactly what has already been said. If god knew how this would play out, then he created us knowing that we'd do x then punished us for x. We can't "freely will" ourselves into choosing anything other than what god has already foreseen, since his foreknowledge explicitly and biblicaly states that he knows our future actions...unless he doesn't even posess -that- foreknowledge. Whether or not you think it;s wrong to beat a dog for being the dog you made him to be is something you'll have to decide for yourself.
God's happy with the end result. I'm happy with the end result and think that my creation is certainly a net positive for me, as do other believers. So, why shouldn't God have created?
Quote:No, an appeal to hypocrisy does not dispute that person a's actions are wrong, it only claims that person b does it to.
It's not an appeal to hypocrisy, as I'm not claiming that either a or b are wrong. If omniscience precludes free will, neither man nor God are good or evil.
Quote:"As agenda said" assumes another proposition, -that gods omniscience precludes -gods- free will...
No, it does not assume another proposition. It's the same proposition - omniscience precludes free will. Again, if you want to argue that God is a special case, then give some reasoning for that position. (This is where you'll dishonestly try to shift things by noting that in actuality I believe God has free will, although that has nothing to do with the scenario at hand.)
Quote:one which is not necessarily true even if the other is true,
Sure - just propose reasons why omniscience precludes the free will of some beings, but not of others.
Quote:does not accurately describe your own belief,
Yep, you try to mix up my actual beliefs with positions taken for the purpose of this argument, even after you've explained that you know the difference.
Quote:or the belief set to which the dilemma was applied.
Incorrect - it accurately describes the belief set to which the dilemma was applied, until someone proposes reasons that omniscience precludes the free will of some beings, but not of others.
