In UK atheists considred more moral than theists.

[Huggy Bear]

To be considered pedantic you'd have to be right...

Go ahead and explain in the scenario in which someone who knows every outcome of every decision would make a mistake.

That isn't what pedantic means, either.  A person can be nitpicky and still be incorrect.  Just as a being can know everything and still be a dick. Also, that being is not, by definition, also able to do everything, so they might not be able to take the action they deem "perfect".

So if a being knew every outcome but could not take all actions, that's a perfect example of your requested scenario.

I clearly stated:

God is omniscient, which by definition means his decisions are always perfect, they cannot be improved upon.

We're clearly talking about decisions that are MADE, so what exactly are you talking about?

Or if they knew every outcome but desired a negative outcome, that's another example of your requested scenario. 

Now if you pair omniscient with omnibenevolent and omnipotent, you might begin to have an argument, but then we butt up against the problem of evil.

But yeah, you can't just toss out one of the three and act like it covers the whole gamut.  It doesn't.

Doesn't matter, If you were an malevolent, omniscient being, and desired a negative outcome, you'd still know the best way possible to make it happen.

[Aroura]

That isn't what pedantic means, either.  A person can be nitpicky and still be incorrect.  Just as a being can know everything and still be a dick. Also, that being is not, by definition, also able to do everything, so they might not be able to take the action they deem "perfect".

So if a being knew every outcome but could not take all actions, that's a perfect example of your requested scenario.

I clearly stated:

God is omniscient, which by definition means his decisions are always perfect, they cannot be improved upon.

We're clearly talking about decisions that are MADE, so what exactly are you talking about?

Or if they knew every outcome but desired a negative outcome, that's another example of your requested scenario. 

Now if you pair omniscient with omnibenevolent and omnipotent, you might begin to have an argument, but then we butt up against the problem of evil.

But yeah, you can't just toss out one of the three and act like it covers the whole gamut.  It doesn't.

Doesn't matter, If you were an malevolent, omniscient being, and desired a negative outcome, you'd still know the best way possible to make it happen.

So what you are saying that an evil and cruel god is also perfect and makes perfect decisions that cannot be improved upon. Good, I'm glad we've cleared up your stance on that.

(But also still, you simply cannot jump from A to therefore C while assuming B is simply part of A.  That's a logical fallacy.)  That is what you did in your opening line, and saying "Hey,I clearly MADE this assumption and stated my assumption clearly" doesn't fix the fact that you are making an assumption, a leap from A to C.

Omniscient does not  mean what you said it means. Period.  You can say you then assumed it also means he can make the decision, but that is simply not part of the definition of omniscient, which is literally what you said, that is was the definition. Things can be tangentially related without being part of the definitions of each other, and you cannot assume that one causes the other without showing it.

Here let me show you:

John is happy, which by definition means his decisions are always kind, they cannot be any kinder. 

Happiness does not necessarily equate to kind behavior.  In such a way I am saying that omnipotence does not necessarily equate to perfect decisions.  You have got to show the steps in the middle, you cannot just leap from your premise to your conclusion without showing your work.

---

Also I'm actually trying to show you a flaw in thinking. I suspect you will respond defensively, but I just want you to step back and look at your own work here. I'm not arguing with you about the existence of god, I just want you to see how you present your own argument.

The next time you approach this same subject, you could instead explain why you think Omniessence alone would lead a god to make perfect decisions, instead of skipping that part and trying to include it in a definition it does not belong in.

Don't always just defend blindly. It's ok to have made an error in thinking (everyone does it!). Stop defending an obvious error, that just makes people take everything you say in the future less seriously. Go back, and just fill in the gap you left. REalize the mistake you made. It's not the end of the world. That's all I'm saying

[Huggy Bear]

So what you are saying that an evil and cruel god is also perfect and makes perfect decisions that cannot be improved upon. Good, I'm glad we've cleared up your stance on that.

No, I'm saying that an omniscient being knows every outcome of any decision, and therefore cannot make a mistake... There are many more qualities to God than 'omniscience'.

(But also still, you simply cannot jump from A to therefore C while assuming B is simply part of A.  That's a logical fallacy.)  That is what you did in your opening line, and saying "Hey,I clearly MADE this assumption and stated my assumption clearly" doesn't fix the fact that you are making an assumption, a leap from A to C.

Omniscient does not  mean what you said it means. Period.  You can say you then assumed it also means he can make the decision, but that is simply not part of the definition of omniscient, which is literally what you said, that is was the definition. Things can be tangentially related without being part of the definitions of each other, and you cannot assume that one causes the other without showing it.

I'll repeat it for you again:

"an omniscient being knows every outcome of any decision, and therefore cannot make a mistake..."

You can try to rationalize that in to being false much as you want, but it only shows the desperation you atheists have in trying to prove me wrong about anything, no matter what subject.

Here let me show you:

John is happy, which by definition means his decisions are always kind, they cannot be any kinder. 

Happiness does not necessarily equate to kind behavior.

Strawman...

So you're going to make up an argument out of thin air?

In such a way I am saying that omnipotence does not necessarily equate to perfect decisions.  You have got to show the steps in the middle, you cannot just leap from your premise to your conclusion without showing your work.

we're talking 'omniscience' not 'omnipotence'...

If an omniscient being makes a mistake, then obviously this being wasn't all knowing  (because he would of known of the mistake before it was made) and by definition wasn't omniscient; Therefore the logic follows that a omniscient being is never wrong...

Got it?



https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/perfect
Definition of perfect

1 a : being entirely without fault or defect : flawless

Also I'm actually trying to show you a flaw in thinking.  I suspect you will respond defensively, but I just want you to step back and look at your own work here.  I'm not arguing with you about the existence of god, I just want you to see how you present your own argument.

The next time you approach this same subject, you could instead explain why you think Omniessence alone would lead a god to make perfect decisions, instead of skipping that part and trying to include it in a definition it does not belong in.

Don't always just defend blindly.  It's ok to have made an error in thinking (everyone does it!).  Stop defending an obvious error, that just makes people take everything you say in the future less seriously. Go back, and just fill in the gap you left.  REalize the mistake you made.  It's not the end of the world. That's all I'm saying

I believe the only one pulling a blind defense is you...

[Aroura]

So what you are saying that an evil and cruel god is also perfect and makes perfect decisions that cannot be improved upon. Good, I'm glad we've cleared up your stance on that.

No, I'm saying that an omniscient being knows every outcome of any decision, and therefore cannot make a mistake... There are many more qualities to God than 'omniscience'.

Good effing lord, that was my entire point!  There must be more qualities, but you are trying to wrap all the qualities up in a single word that does not have all of those qualities!
If Omniscient means perfect, then an evil omniscient being is also perfect.  I'm just pointing out the flaw in you using omniscient to = perfect.  Thank you for finally admitting you were wrong (even though you didn't....you totally did).
Sianora asshole.  I don't talk to people who literally cannot admit they are ever, ever ever, ever, ever, ever, ever wrong evon over something as simple as the definition of a word.  You are a narcissistic prick who is incapable of a simple conversation that requires listening with an open mind to other people and not just your internal dialog.  A discussion is not picking a position and blindly defending it, like a football player with his 6th concussion.  It's a give and take, two way thing, not all about you and your ego and being 100% right all the time.  
Good luck in life, you'll need it.

---

This was a discussion about the definition of a freaking word...you tiny, tiny, dinky little man. Get your head out of your own ass. It was a simple, oh yeah, good point, that's all you had to do. Just acknowledge a tiny mistake. A word used ever so slightly incorrectly. Which you never do, because all you care about is yourself and being right. You are not worth my further time. Narcissism is pretty much incurable. A hollow shell where your own voice echos around inside.

.ignored

[I_am_not_mafia]

No, I'm saying that an omniscient being knows every outcome of any decision, and therefore cannot make a mistake... There are many more qualities to God than 'omniscience'.


"an omniscient being knows every outcome of any decision, and therefore cannot make a mistake..."

Optimal according to what criterion?

What makes a decision the best one compared to a suboptimal decision? How is this decided?

Why should we assume that what is best for Mr God is best for us?

[Silver]

Huggy hugs apologies.

[The Grand Nudger]

Why should we assume that what is best for Mr God is best for us?

Since we've defined mr god as perfect whatever decision mr god makes must be the perfect one regardless of how disastrous, farcical, or inept it may seem by any other assessment.

[Huggy Bear]

No, I'm saying that an omniscient being knows every outcome of any decision, and therefore cannot make a mistake... There are many more qualities to God than 'omniscience'.

Good effing lord, that was my entire point!  There must be more qualities, but you are trying to wrap all the qualities up in a single word that does not have all of those qualities!
If Omniscient means perfect, then an evil omniscient being is also perfect.  I'm just pointing out the flaw in you using omniscient to = perfect.  Thank you for finally admitting you were wrong (even though you didn't....you totally did).
Sianora asshole.  I don't talk to people who literally cannot admit they are ever, ever ever, ever, ever, ever, ever wrong evon over something as simple as the definition of a word.  You are a narcissistic prick who is incapable of a simple conversation that requires listening with an open mind to other people and not just your internal dialog.  A discussion is not picking a position and blindly defending it, like a football player with his 6th concussion.  It's a give and take, two way thing, not all about you and your ego and being 100% right all the time.  
Good luck in life, you'll need it.

---

This was a discussion about the definition of a freaking word...you tiny, tiny, dinky little man.  Get your head out of your own ass.  It was a simple, oh yeah, good point, that's all you had to do.  Just acknowledge a tiny mistake.  A word used ever so slightly incorrectly.  Which you never do, because all you care about is yourself and being right.  You are not worth my further time.  Narcissism is pretty much incurable.  A hollow shell where your own voice echos around inside.

.ignored

Lol, as if it bothers me to have to deal with one less muppet...

If Omniscient means perfect, then an evil omniscient being is also perfect.  I'm just pointing out the flaw in you using omniscient to = perfect.

This is a bald faced misrepresentation.

I never said that "Omniscient means perfect" I said "God is omniscient, which by definition means his decisions are always perfect, they cannot be improved upon."

You cannot be all knowing and make mistakes... period.

[Silver]

You cannot be all knowing and make mistakes... period.

Except for the mistake of free will. Omniscience eradicates free will.

[robvalue]

Considering God was the only thing that existed beforehand, supposedly, any decision it made about what happened after that could only be perfect for itself. Otherwise, it's just creating problems to solve.