10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer

[The Grand Nudger]

I don;t know how many ways I can explain to you that this doesn;t matter, if what you want to show is a problem in someone -elses- argument....

It doesn't matter, until you act as if it's my actual position, and build arguments from that (false) foundation. Then it matters.

It -is- your position that god has free will.  That he's not some mindless automaton locked into a future course of action.

Yep, but when you then act as if I accept the premise in actuality, rather than just for the purposes of this specific argument, we have a problem.

You -do- accept the premise that god is willful.  Again, you believe in it as a matter of christer faith.  -We- don't have a problem, you do.

Yep, and you don't then ask them if they really believe in God. Yet, when I do the same, you do ask me if I think God is a mindless automaton. That's the problem.

No, I don't, because it would be retarded to ask an -atheist- if they believed in god.  Meanwhile, I know that you do, I know that you think god is not an automaton, you have explicitly acknowledged this, and it;s clear that you're either missing the argument entirely, or trolling the shit out of us a usual.....by reference to your posts in response to that argument.

Now you're proposing a weak reason - saying that God can't know his own actions without specifying why.

Mysterious ways...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.  

But we can work with it. Same thing I asked Succubus - in this scenario, God knows the necessary playout of this creation. He went ahead and created. Are you saying it was wrong for him to go ahead with this creation? Why?

-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.   

I could propose, here as well as before, that our future actions may not be knowable.  That a logically coherent concept of omniscience does not include what cannot be known.  It would be a problem for biblical literalists, but not a problem for free will, or omniscience...and voila..the entire dilemma goes away.  Some people may wonder what sort of omniscience contains this rapidly diminishing knowledge-set..but hey, them's the breaks.  

Of course it disputes that God's actions are wrong with those presumptions. As Agenda said, "Therefore he holds no responsibility for any of his actions and is more like a powerful automaton than a person."

No, an appeal to hypocrisy does not dispute that person a's actions are wrong, it only claims that person b does it to.  End of.  "As agenda said" assumes another proposition, -that gods omniscience precludes -gods- free will...one which is not necessarily true even if the other is true, does not accurately describe your own belief, or the belief set to which the dilemma was applied.  I understand that with so many complicated™ arguments running over each other you may have gotten confused.

(ps: I think it's cute that you're trying to logic and such. Practice makes perfect.)