Why God doesn't stop satan?

[The Architect Of Fate]

You only saw this one world and spacetime, it's rather comprehensible that you think time is a necessary condition to do something... So, argument from personal incredulity 

No, it's a reasonable interpretation of the laws of physics.  Action and time are related.

You have no credible evidence for your god in this universe, so you use the pathetic excuse that your god is hiding in some other place that human science can't detect.

The problem with this is that it renders your god impotent, incapable of interacting in any way with our universe unless it steps into our space-time sphere (where it should then become detectable).  We can detect light from billions of years ago.  We can detect exoplanets orbiting nearby stars.  We can detect the Cosmic Background Radiation, the electromagnetic "echo" of the Big Bang.

But even a single trace of a being allegedly so powerful that it created the universe?

The silence is deafening.

You're alone, Klorophyll.  You're worshipping a character in a storybook.

Imaginary places they can hide god 

[R00tKiT]

Step one:  Demonstrate that a "timeless being" actually exists - empirically, not philosophically.

Why do you exclude non empirical arguments ? 
It's obvious that a timeless being can't proven empirically(=inside space and time). 

Step two:  Demonstrate that it does indeed have foreknowledge.

You skipped some steps before this one, like proving that some abrahamic religion is true. Once this is done, it's the content of the revelation that tells us this deity has foreknowledge.

You only saw this one world and spacetime, it's rather comprehensible that you think time is a necessary condition to do something... So, argument from personal incredulity 

No, it's a reasonable interpretation of the laws of physics.  Action and time are related.

It's clearly an argument from incredulity, and you should be ashame of yourself for defending a fallacy, which I think you're aware of.

You have no credible evidence for your god in this universe, so you use the pathetic excuse that your god is hiding in some other place that human science can't detect.

The problem with this is that it renders your god impotent, incapable of interacting in any way with our universe unless it steps into our space-time sphere (where it should then become detectable).  We can detect light from billions of years ago.  We can detect exoplanets orbiting nearby stars.  We can detect the Cosmic Background Radiation, the electromagnetic "echo" of the Big Bang.

Oh.. you don't like God being outside of space and time? That's cute.

And it would be an absolute breakthrough in philosophy if you can establish that a being outside of space and time is impotent.

But even a single trace of a being allegedly so powerful that it created the universe?

Usually when someone puts their name everywhere in their product, it's a sign they are insecure. Why can't the universe itself and what it contains be the trace of this being and a display of His power?

There is no time gate to a pre-knower. 

But the object of foreknoweldge is bound by time, as I repeatedly explained to you. The free will of an individual intrinsically depends on time and circumstances, you don't take that into account in your refutation. 

The issue between free will and preknowledge, for the umpteenth time.  Is that -if it can be known...even if it isn't known, even if no one knows it, even if no one -makes- it happen, that you will select x.....  You cannot do otherwise. 

You say, "you cannot do otherwise". This assertion is true in what moment exactly ? before I select x, or afterwards ?

[Fake Messiah]

Oh.. you don't like God being outside of space and time? That's cute.

And it would be an absolute breakthrough in philosophy if you can establish that a being outside of space and time is impotent.

These are just your claims, you have no evidence that God (or anything else) exists in another imaginary dimension.

In fact, these are just ridiculous ad hoc excuses to explain the nonexistence of your God. You can make anything exist by making these excuses.

Like Carl Sagan and his claim to have a dragon in his garage. As an example of skeptical thinking, Sagan offers a story concerning a fire-breathing dragon who lives in his garage. When he persuades a rational, open-minded visitor to meet the dragon, the visitor remarks that they are unable to see the creature. Sagan replies that he "neglected to mention that she's an invisible dragon". The visitor suggests spreading flour on the floor so that the creature's footprints might be seen, which Sagan says is a good idea, "but this dragon floats in the air". When the visitor considers using an infrared camera to view the creature's invisible fire, Sagan explains that her fire is heatless. You'll spray-paint the dragon and make her visible.`Good idea, except she's an incorporeal dragon and the paint won't stick.'

So what's the difference between an invisible, incorporeal, God living in an imaginary dimension and no God at all?

[Astreja]

Why do you exclude non empirical arguments ?

Because for me they do not constitute evidence. If something isn't backed up by testable data, and if it does not match up with common sense, and if it has no other redeeming qualities (e.g. a popular movie character that simply doesn't interest me), I have no reason to bother with it.

It's obvious that a timeless being can't proven empirically(=inside space and time).

And that's why I reject the concept - it's no more than a wild imagining that can't be tested.

You skipped some steps before this one, like proving that some abrahamic religion is true.

Well, you've done a piss-poor job of that so far. I believe all of the Abrahamic religions to be no more than obsolete cultural practices that are irrelevant to my own life in 2021. There is nothing of value in them that cannot be obtained elsewhere without the gods-and-demons woo-woo.

I also believe that "revelation" is pure unadulterated bullshit, a 100% human invention with 0% gods in the mix.

It's clearly an argument from incredulity, and you should be ashame of yourself for defending a fallacy, which I think you're aware of.

Congratulations, K. You've just made me your enemy. Suffice to say that I would not micturate upon you if you were in a state of combustion.

[The Grand Nudger]

There is no time gate to a pre-knower. 

But the object of foreknoweldge is bound by time, as I repeatedly explained to you. The free will of an individual intrinsically depends on time and circumstances, you don't take that into account in your refutation. 

You have no free will if you cannot do otherwise.  You have a fate, a destiny.  That's why they call the beliefs you've expressed fatalism.  

The issue between free will and preknowledge, for the umpteenth time.  Is that -if it can be known...even if it isn't known, even if no one knows it, even if no one -makes- it happen, that you will select x.....  You cannot do otherwise. 

You say, "you cannot do otherwise". This assertion is true in what moment exactly ? before I select x, or afterwards ?

You believe that god knew everything that would happen before there was ever a first moment.  God would know, before you selected x, afterwards, before you were born, before your mother was born, in fact, you've never once made a choice in your entire life.  You've merely stumbled through a set of predetermined selections engineered by the author of creation. All of it leading certainly and inevitably to whatever end your garbage god has in store for you..which, as I hear it told, is pretty gruesome.

Foreknowledge precludes free will. The author of creation precludes free will by foreknowledge, and prevents it's mere possibility by force of it's asserted existence. That's why so many of the people who you cribbed your religion from don't believe in it. I think you understand that there's an issue here, yourself, given that you invoked a downright hilarious ad hoc miracle to explain how god did and was all of the things you knew would violate the concept, but, by magic, it didn't have that effect. Somehow, we still had the thing you knew we could have.

abracadabra!

---

I wonder, could we peel back another layer of the onion here? I could explain why the beliefs you've asserted caused you to immediately argue against them yourself all day..but that probably wont produce any real insight for you. What might, is wondering why you need both things to be true, and why you feel that either of them being false would invalidate anything else, or indeed much or all of everything else.

It must be a powerful need. If we had no free will, would that mean there was no god, for example? No good and bad? Would we, upon discovering that we in fact have no free will, all dissappear into a puff of mist, finite, end of story? You seemed to think that people would have to explain something outside of your religious beliefs...but you must already know that this is a trivial exercise? Categorically trivial, in fact, for people who don't share your religious beliefs. It's not a gotcha question, it just makes you look like an idiot..or worse, a deviant.

[R00tKiT]

Because for me they do not constitute evidence. 

Well, for me, they do  . Now, it's just your tastes and biases against mine. Last time I checked one just doesn't get to choose the flavor of evidence they're willing to accept. 
Atheists are open-minded my ass

Well, you've done a piss-poor job of that so far.  I believe all of the Abrahamic religions to be no more than obsolete cultural practices that are irrelevant to my own life in 2021.  There is nothing of value in them that cannot be obtained elsewhere without the gods-and-demons woo-woo.

I also believe that "revelation" is pure unadulterated bullshit, a 100% human invention with 0% gods in the mix.

 You don't seem to have some adequate justification why all revelations are human inventions. So your position is incredibly irrational. 

Congratulations, K.  You've just made me your enemy. 

If you're still insisting on defending a false claim based on personal incredulity (time is a necessary requirement for existence [sic]), you are an enemy of reason and, a fortiori, my enemy.

[no one]

That's rich, kpop calling anyone an enemy of reason. I'm sure the burned out bulb at the end of the street has more reasoning skills than this complete fool!

[R00tKiT]

You believe that god knew everything that would happen before there was ever a first moment.  God would know, before you selected x, afterwards, before you were born, before your mother was born, in fact, you've never once made a choice in your entire life.  You've merely stumbled through a set of predetermined selections engineered by the author of creation.  All of it leading certainly and inevitably to whatever end your garbage god has in store for you..which, as I hear it told, is pretty gruesome.  

It really looks like you never read any response, anything, about fatalism. If it were as easy as you make it look like here, rejecting theism would really be a no-brainer. Let's repeat that again: so far, you didn't present any definition of free will, you're only repeating what foreknowledge entails. Yes, God knows what I will select and choose my entire life. These selections are there as a result of free will, in other words, God knows the outcomes of my free will, and there is no contradiction here . It really seems that this is too hard for you to understand.

Or, to use your own words, you merely stumbled through what you would've chosen by free will, all of it leading certainly and inevitably to the end. See, no contradiction  

---

I wonder, could we peel back another layer of the onion here?  I could explain why the beliefs you've asserted caused you to immediately argue against them yourself all day..but that probably wont produce any real insight for you.  What might, is wondering why you need both things to be true, and why you feel that either of them being false would invalidate anything else, or indeed much or all of everything else.  

It must be a powerful need.  If we had no free will, would that mean there was no god, for example?  No good and bad?  Would we, upon discovering that we in fact have no free will, all dissappear into a puff of mist, finite, end of story?  You seemed to think that people would have to explain something outside of your religious beliefs...but you must already know that this is a trivial exercise?  Categorically trivial, in fact, for people who don't share your religious beliefs.  It's not a gotcha question, it just makes you look like an idiot..or worse, a deviant.

Clearly, if there is no free will, a theistic God as described in Abrahamic religions cannot exist. But this kind of conclusion is something no atheist can ever dream to establish. I am worried too that you might be a deviant, there is extensive literature about reconciling foreknowledge and free will, I am not sure why you think you solved this by rehearsing the definition of foreknowledge.

---

That's rich, kpop calling anyone an enemy of reason. I'm sure the burned out bulb at the end of the street has more reasoning skills than this complete fool!

---

Oh.. you don't like God being outside of space and time? That's cute.

And it would be an absolute breakthrough in philosophy if you can establish that a being outside of space and time is impotent.

These are just your claims, you have no evidence that God (or anything else) exists in another imaginary dimension.

In fact, these are just ridiculous ad hoc excuses to explain the nonexistence of your God. You can make anything exist by making these excuses.

What's so stretched about saying the cause of spacetime is outside of spacetime ? Isn't that a statement atheists will agree with, too? 
We just disagree on the nature of this first cause or prime mover.

[no one]

Kpop:



Do get royalties for your likeness?

[The Grand Nudger]

It really looks like you never read any response, anything, about fatalism. If it were as easy as you make it look like here, rejecting theism would really be a no-brainer. Let's repeat that again: so far, you didn't present any definition of free will, you're only repeating what foreknowledge entails. Yes, God knows what I will select and choose my entire life. These selections are there as a result of free will, in other words, God knows the outcomes of my free will, and there is no contradiction here . It really seems that this is too hard for you to understand.

Or, to use your own words, you merely stumbled through what you would've chosen by free will, all of it leading certainly and inevitably to the end. See, no contradiction  

Rejecting theism is even easier than understanding the incompatibility between foreknowledge and free will.  A person doesn't need to know that to know that they think your stories are ridiculous.  Here again, it makes no sense to call what you cannot but do a free anything.  

Put down magic book, pick up a textbook.

Clearly, if there is no free will, a theistic God as described in Abrahamic religions cannot exist. But this kind of conclusion is something no atheist can ever dream to establish. I am worried too that you might be a deviant, there is extensive literature about reconciling foreknowledge and free will, I am not sure why you think you solved this by rehearsing the definition of foreknowledge.

See, I had a suspicion it would be something completely derp, like this.  There's no reason why that's clear, and..in fact, a significant number of abrahamic cultists don't believe that man has a free will.  There isn't any literature about reconciling foreknowledge and free will.  You need it to be true because you believe it imperils your god...even though it doesn't. Meanwhile, it is fairly clear that and why foreknowledge precludes free will, as you notice...by definition. Seems to me that a god breathed truth ought to stand up to more scrutiny than that.