10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer

[The Grand Nudger]

Yes, and that's obvious, so why did you ask?

For no reason other than to make your obstinate irrationality obvious. 

Yep.

-and the proposition that god willfully does -x- to his automaton creation also assumes the same.  

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.

You actually do, since you -also- propose that god knows what we will do before we do it.  This exposes an -internal- inconsistency which gives rise to the moral/ethical question of god's judgement.  It's only a problem because you've made it a problem.

Likewise, it's retarded to ask a Christian if they think God is a mindless automaton, so you show yourself to be retarded.

Not at all, many christers take it as an article of faith that god cannot do anything other than what his nature allows and describes.  Dissimilarly, no atheist believes in a god.

I.e. no reason.

More a problem for you and special case god than a problem for the proposition at hand.

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.

No, the proposition was that god knew -our- future actions..that is why -we- have no free will, and that is what makes -gods- judgement of us absurd.  Glad to clear that up for you.  Whether or not gods possession of free will is contradicted by his omniscience was not claimed, and does not necessarrily follow from what necessarily makes our own free will contradictory with the claimed attribute set.

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?

Just as a dog owner might be happy with the result of having beaten his dog.  The dog no longer takes the bacon and sits, cowered in fear, under the table.  This doesn;t dispute or comment upon the inequity of the situation anymore than anything else you've offered up so far.  

Now gods just a puppy beater who made the puppies in such a way as to be beaten, and others do it too...and it's nbd because, you know, god is pleased with the arrangement.  Well he would be, if he were a puppy beater, now wouldn't he be?  

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.

That;s not what an appeal to hypocrisy is you idiot.  An appeal to hypocrisy is when, coinfrointed with some x, you respond by saying "you too"..which is exactly what you did.  Meanwhile, you neither believe that gods omniscience precludes god's free will..nor does the proposition that god's supposed and biblically described omniscience precludes mans free will necesarrily mean that it precludes his own.  QED, and fucking fail alpha.

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.)

........................................................................................ and this is where you ignorantly project your own failings onto others.  

Sure - just propose reasons why omniscience precludes the free will of some beings, but not of others.

I don't have to, because that isn;t contained within the proposition that omniscience of our actions precludes our free will...but I already have...so I don;t see why you;re asking now as if I hadn't? 

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.

You didn't assume a position for the sake of argument, you added your own wrinkle to completely avoid the argument.  Fail.

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.

Not because you say so, and you're wrong for every reason mentioned more than once.  Nevertheless, as I already said, I don;t have any problem with god being an automaton..not that it would alter the assessment of his actions....as I;ve already opinied upon, by reference to the criminally insane...who despite being considered automatons in that important regard - not moral agents themselves, are still held rationally and justifiably accountable for their evil -act-. The notion that god is a monster who can't help himself, itself, contradicts those claimed attributes which created the moral/ethical dilemma in the first place - and so doesn't rescue the god proposition in the least.

Just....stop?

Bonus round: can you spot the competent bit of apologetics above that actually -does- rescue the god proposition from the criticism at hand......without any need to go full retard - granted it will fall apart when considered on it's own, requiring yet another downgrade in just what knowledge might be contained within his alleged "omniscience"......but that's neither here nor there in an actual, logical, discussion?

---

You know, I'm considering making a "khem goes full retard" thread wherein I offer to take the apologists seat for these godless heathens becausae I;m just sick and tired of the pathetic examples that the flock keep smearing all over our boards.  

What do you think, would it be fun, would you participate?  Maybe you can lob some of the shit that atheists have frustrated you with and see how a person who knows his ass from a hole in the theological ground effectively diffuses their arguments?