10 Questions Biblical Literalists Cannot Honestly Answer

[John V]

That was the position you were addressing.

Exactly. It wasn't my position.

If you didn't assume it, then you couldn't have been showing any problem within someone else's argument.

I can discuss a position without taking it myself. Should be obvious, as we're at a site where atheists routinely make arguments regarding God, even though they don't believe in Him. You know, like my opponent was doing?

Their argument being that god's

Whoa, by your reasoning I guess they believe in God.

omniscience with regards to our actions precludes -our- free will.

Yes, and when it's noted that omniscience therefore also precludes -God's- free will, they can't come up with a reason that differentiates men from God and allows free will in the one but not the other.

---

Damn, dude, how many times are you going to edit that post?

..that god's omniscience precludes his own free will..which you do not believe, and which was not the crux of that others argument

Of course it wasn't the crux of his argument, as it destroyed the argument. You're protesting that I pointed out a flaw that my opponent didn't see in his argument. That's ridiculous.

[The Grand Nudger]

Exactly. It wasn't my position.

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....

I can discuss a position without taking it myself. Should be obvious, as we're at a site where atheists routinely make arguments regarding God, even though they don't believe in Him. You know, like my opponent was doing?

SAure, but what you -can't- do is show an -internal- problem without accepting it, for the purposes of argumentation.

Whoa, by your reasoning I guess they believe in God.

They've obviously assumed it for the purpose of argument, to show what they feel is an internal inconsistency....mostly because that's how that's done - and can;t be done any other way.  Or, I mean..yeah, your batshit comment is spot on, and you're not a mouth breathing loon two feet under the water of the conversation and too trollishly stubborn to let go.

Yes, and when it's noted that omniscience therefore also precludes -God's- free will, they can't come up with a reason that differentiates men from God and allows free will in the one but not the other.

Does it?  Do you believe that it does?  Just because gods omniscience as described precludes our free will..doesn't mean that it would preclude gods.  Either because god is a special case, or because gods actions, unlike our own, cannot be known - and so any logically coherent conception of omniscience does not contain within it the knowledge that would preclude his own free will.  Take notes, this is how you competently do apologism.

In any case..-they- don;t have to come up with any such justification.  It's not their baby. That's your belief..and you tossed it in there as a way to avoid discussing -their- proposition, so you could toss out a common "you too" defense of gods proposed inequity....... that doesn't even dispute that gods actions are wrong or absurd in that regard..just claims that someone else does it too.

So what did you show, again? I think you may have found a way to reenfoirce the OP.

[John V]

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.

SAure, but what you -can't- do is show an -internal- problem without accepting it, for the purposes of argumentation.

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.

They've obviously assumed it for the purpose of argument, to show what they feel is an internal inconsistency....mostly because that's how that's done - and can;t be done any other way.

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.

Does it?  Do you believe that it does?  Just because gods omniscience as described precludes our free will..doesn't mean that it would preclude gods.  Either because god is a special case, or because gods actions, unlike our own, cannot be known - and so any logically coherent conception of omniscience does not contain within it the knowledge that would preclude his own free will.

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

In any case..-they- don;t have to come up with any such justification.  It's not their baby. That's your belief..and you tossed it in there as a way to avoid discussing -their- proposition, so you could toss out a common "you too" defense of gods proposed inequity....... that doesn't even dispute that gods actions are wrong or absurd in that regard..just claims that someone else does it too.

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."

[Mister Agenda]

At this point, I no longer know what your actual position is. You've unlocked level 3 'being vague' achievement. Congratulations.

[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.)

[John V]

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?

You -do- accept the premise that god is willful.

Yep.

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.

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.

Mysterious ways...

I.e. no reason.

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.

-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?

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.

"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.)

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.

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.

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.

[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?

[John V]

You've already gone full retard, or at least full intellectual dishonesty. I'm done with you.

[The Grand Nudger]

Threads up..I don't have anything more to add in this one, as there's nothing more -to- add to this one from my point of participation.

Save this..lol, ofc.

That's the ten count, up above, isn't it?  You have nothing to say for yourself and nothing to say in response.  Last word, I win, I'm so sick of winning.

[John V]

Done completely BTW, not just this thread. Bye.