What will it take for you to Believe!? (God)

reply to post by Locoman8

Does He know what choices we will make? Most christians would say "yes" and they would be wrong.

So how exactly, is it possible for a being to not be aware of something and remain omnipresent ?

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by Locoman8

 

Does He know what choices we will make? Most christians would say "yes" and they would be wrong.

So how exactly, is it possible for a being to not be aware of something and remain omnipresent ?

The two quotes have nothing to do with each other. Whether God knows what choice we will make has nothing to do with omniprescence. Omniprescences means that the God deity is everywhere at all times. Omniscient is all knowing.

That is what you mean I think moocowman. I think I saw a post back where you criticise xtians for not understanding or thinking deeply about the issue of omniprescence and free will. The two issues are seperate. Omniscient is the issue. I think you need to understand what you are talking about before you go about pointing out the lack of philosphical or theological deepth that christians display when you can't even get the terms right.

One could argue that foreknowledge(this is the paradox you seem keen on bringing up by refering to gods knowledge and free will) does not mean a predetermined event. Just because God has foreknowledge does not mean that we have not made a decision. it just means that as God is Outside of time, he knows what decisions we will make, but just because he knows that does not determine the actual decisions itself. Although there are certain sections of belief that God is determanistic in nature and is actually controlling events.
I know this is deep, but before you attack xtians over their understanding of these massive philosophical paradoxes, I suggested you dive deeply into them yourself.
I suggest you also look at other determanist philosphies, compatabalists and non-compatabalists alike, so as to truely investigate the concept of free will.

reply to post by atlasastro

The two quotes have nothing to do with each other. Whether God knows what choice we will make has nothing to do with omniprescence. Omniprescences means that the God deity is everywhere at all times. Omniscient is all knowing.

Well you certainly lost me there my friend I think, so that we are clear --

Are you implying that -

A) The creator of all that there is, is not omniscient ?

B) The creator of all that there is is not omnipresent ?

You may or may not have noticed that in most of my earlier posts (perhaps not necessarily in all this thread) I had described the entity in question (god) in this manner - omniscient/omnipresent.

The assumption that I have made (perhaps wrongly) is that xtians believed that their god is omniscient/omnipresent, kind of lazy of me to use the one although they're not necessarily interchangeable, my bad.


Nevertheless, if you disagree to both (A) and (B), how then, is it possible for an entity which, created "everything" that is,was, or will ever be. That is everywhere and everywhen and that knows everything (obviously because it created everything that is possible to know and to be.
To be unaware of anything that is,was, or will ever be?

God shows mercy by not punishing you for eternity, but by giving you a death sentence in the lake of fire, known as the second death.


LOL- yay for mercy

good day to you too LOco

In all fairness he comes across as pleasant enough

He may be pleasant enough but he is dogmatic in his approach

-he tried to tell me in another thread that Catholics arent Christians, I tried to tell him they were- in the end (as it was getting ridiculous) I said okely dokely you can think they are and I will think they're not- how about that?- he wouldnt come to the party just kept rabbiting on with his dogma- and thats the problem with Christians- they can't handle that peeps don't believe and start telling them stuff like Loco just told us- we are going to DIE!! a firey brimstoney death!! for not believing- they dictate their religion to us like it is dictated to them


[edit on 5-8-2009 by lifecitizen]

reply to post by lifecitizen


Do you think a catholic hell is worse than a pentecostal hell ? That purgartory place didn't seem too bad, but I think the pope magiked it away not long back.
Wonder what the hell he did with it ?

I've tried really hard to worship something, but I can't quite figure how to do it, the bibles discuss how to go about praying, this has been discussed. Basically it's wishing really hard.

But the bibles don't appear to explain how to go about worshiping, unless it's the same as praying with a grovelling attitude.

I somehow would not particularly relish, spending eternity on my knees wishing rally hard with a grovelling attitude to a jealous bearded half young half old man in need of anger management.

reply to post by lifecitizen


I never said you'd die in fire. I said, you will all get your chance after seeing with your eyes and hearing from Christ Himself. Your sins are wiped clean when you die.

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by lifecitizen

 

Do you think a catholic hell is worse than a pentecostal hell ? That purgartory place didn't seem too bad, but I think the pope magiked it away not long back.
Wonder what the hell he did with it ?

I've tried really hard to worship something, but I can't quite figure how to do it, the bibles discuss how to go about praying, this has been discussed. Basically it's wishing really hard.

But the bibles don't appear to explain how to go about worshiping, unless it's the same as praying with a grovelling attitude.

I somehow would not particularly relish, spending eternity on my knees wishing rally hard with a grovelling attitude to a jealous bearded half young half old man in need of anger management.

Yeah old Popey abolished 'Limbo' a coupla years back- you know, because it was never an 'official doctrine' - never mind about all his loyal followers who had children die as still borns and never got the chance to be baptised- those poor women, what a cruel church it is

Worship? not my thing either so I have no advice for ya MC I dont worship anything 'cept maybe Roger Federer because he's the best tennis player the worlds ever seen and he's drop dead gorgeous

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by lifecitizen

 

I never said you'd die in fire. I said, you will all get your chance after seeing with your eyes and hearing from Christ Himself. Your sins are wiped clean when you die.

Um, yes, you did-

Even then, God shows mercy by not punishing you for eternity, but by giving you a death sentence in the lake of fire, known as the second death.

reply to post by lifecitizen


you are twisting my words. I was explaining what happens to people who still deny God after God is visible and known to the world. I wasn't specifying that you or any other athiest was going to die in fire as a result of not believing at this present time. Don't read my post out of context. I was simply implying that I'm not one of those christians that believe you'll burn forever in hell if you don't die as a christian.

Originally posted by lifecitizen

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by lifecitizen

 

Do you think a catholic hell is worse than a pentecostal hell ? That purgartory place didn't seem too bad, but I think the pope magiked it away not long back.
Wonder what the hell he did with it ?

I've tried really hard to worship something, but I can't quite figure how to do it, the bibles discuss how to go about praying, this has been discussed. Basically it's wishing really hard.

But the bibles don't appear to explain how to go about worshiping, unless it's the same as praying with a grovelling attitude.

I somehow would not particularly relish, spending eternity on my knees wishing rally hard with a grovelling attitude to a jealous bearded half young half old man in need of anger management.

Yeah old Popey abolished 'Limbo' a coupla years back- you know, because it was never an 'official doctrine' - never mind about all his loyal followers who had children die as still borns and never got the chance to be baptised- those poor women, what a cruel church it is

Worship? not my thing either so I have no advice for ya MC I dont worship anything 'cept maybe Roger Federer because he's the best tennis player the worlds ever seen and he's drop dead gorgeous

I think Andy Roddick is my favorite tennis player, though Federer has his number. That being said, Nadal has Federer's number too. I don't worship anything other than God (keeping it topic-oriented). Plus, Andy Roddick use to date the gorgeous Mandy Moore.

Originally posted by Locoman8
reply to post by lifecitizen

 

you are twisting my words. I was explaining what happens to people who still deny God after God is visible and known to the world. I wasn't specifying that you or any other athiest was going to die in fire as a result of not believing at this present time. Don't read my post out of context. I was simply implying that I'm not one of those christians that believe you'll burn forever in hell if you don't die as a christian.

Your post was quite clear- we get a death sentence known as the 'second death' in a lake of fire, not sure how you think I'm taking that out of context!

Roddick is my second fave player just love his sarcasm and Nadal is a gentleman like the Feds so I like him too





[edit on 5-8-2009 by lifecitizen]

reply to post by lifecitizen


I didn't say that you would end up in fire directly.... I said IF you deny God after He lets Himself known to you in the resurrection of Judgement, then that would be the punishment. I'm not condemning you to hellfire as we speak or anything like that. Most christians would tell you that you'd burn forever in pain and agony but I ask them, how does that show that God is merciful? His mercy is shown by allowing the unrepentant to be done with their lives and end it quickly.

I'm glad we both like tennis. Since I'm a guy, I think I'd call Maria Sharapova very sexy but Roddick is my fav player. He has the fastest serve in tennis at like 130mph.

Sharapova annoys me with her grunting etc that is such a ploy and should be against the rules- but I agree she's cute

Roddick has got the fastest serve and is a consistent player- he's a bit of a poor loser but nothing like our Hewitt- he's embarrassing!! I go for anyone else except him, lol

[edit on 5-8-2009 by lifecitizen]

reply to post by lifecitizen


Yeah, Roddick does tend to get mad about loseing but I think it's because of how competetive he is. I agree Sharapova is annoying but she is eye candy. What am I talking about? I shouldn't lust over another woman! Let's just say I "admire" her looks.

Originally posted by moocowman
reply to post by atlasastro

 

The two quotes have nothing to do with each other. Whether God knows what choice we will make has nothing to do with omniprescence. Omniprescences means that the God deity is everywhere at all times. Omniscient is all knowing.

Well you certainly lost me there my friend I think, so that we are clear --

Are you implying that -

A) The creator of all that there is, is not omniscient ?

B) The creator of all that there is is not omnipresent ?

I am not imply anything. I was stating that you didn't know what omniprescence means. It has no impact on the paradox associated with omniscient God and free will. That is all.

You may or may not have noticed that in most of my earlier posts (perhaps not necessarily in all this thread) I had described the entity in question (god) in this manner - omniscient/omnipresent.

So what? If you noticed in my post i was replying to a specific post where you link omnipresence and free will.

The assumption that I have made (perhaps wrongly) is that xtians believed that their god is omniscient/omnipresent, kind of lazy of me to use the one although they're not necessarily interchangeable, my bad.

Mate that is understandable. But I am glad that you bring up the topic of lazyness. The paradoxes surrounding Omnipotence, omniscience, and omnipresence are Lazy arguements. They are unanswerable. So they serve no purpose if you were to actually delve into them as has been done for centuries.
But, those that don't understand them properly, or those just trolling for an arguement constantly use these paradoxes to try and argue the impossibility of God. Paradoxes are labled so because the answers are essentially unknowable. There are much, much better arguements and questions to ask christians in relation to these three characteristics of God. But I am not going to give them to you. That would be lazy.

Nevertheless, if you disagree to both (A) and (B), how then, is it possible for an entity which, created "everything" that is,was, or will ever be. That is everywhere and everywhen and that knows everything (obviously because it created everything that is possible to know and to be.
To be unaware of anything that is,was, or will ever be?

My reply to you was to do with your incorrect correlation between Omnipresence and free will.
Obviously your example of A and B are irrelevant to me becauuse I was not imply that, you just infered it.

But I know what you are talking about as it was a poster who said this.

Does He know what choices we will make? Most christians would say "yes" and they would be wrong.

On the face of this comment, I agree with you and I too could consider this to be a ridiculous assertion, if at the same time you accept that God is omniscient.
But there is also interesting aspects to this comment that are also true but seem to contradict God's omniscience.
God as characterised by the abrahamic beliefs is infinite. Whilst we are finite. So God would know all the potentials available in the finite, this would be logical as God is infinite. As a finite individual, there would be an extremely large collection of potential choices and actions available to us in the finite creation that an Infinite God has made.

If you(for the sake of this arguement) accept that God has given you freedom to plot your own course within the finite potentials known to the infinite God, than God would know all your potential choices, but at the same time the actual choice or action would only be apparent to that God when the individual given freewill in the existence of potential finite choice actually plots a specifc course out of just some of the known potential choices and actions.

So you can see how interesting, complex and deep aspects of God can be whan pondering freewill. You could ponder these for a lifetime. Which is probably why most christians, and indeed most people settle for oversimplifications or doctrine and dogma. I accept this as people just have better things to do with their time. As I am sure you do too.

So again, when choice and Gods omniscience come into play they create some interesting things to consider.
Simply put, people assume that when we apply a characterstic of Omniscience to God that that means the knowledge of what choice any person will make, is made because God knows that choice. But knowledge of something does not make it the agent cause, does it? Does my knowing that tomorrow will come, make tomorrow happen? Can you see what I mean.

Out of interest, what is it that you believe. Are we oddly free agents in a universe that seems to be determanistic in nature. Or Is freewill an illusion, all choices and actions just a chain of the inevitable consequences of cause and effect?


Also on the subject of omnipresence, have you ever look at slit tests, and double slit tests in quantum physics. When firing a particle at two slits to see which way the particle would go, the particle goes through both. Only when physicists place a camera to capture the particlea particle was its exact location defined and it only travelled through one slit, otherwise when unobserved it is in all potential places at the same time. Or it is everywhere it can possible be all at the same time.
Amazing isn't it.









[edit on 6-8-2009 by atlasastro]

reply to post by atlasastro

Also on the subject of omnipresence, have you ever look at slit tests, and double slit tests in quantum physics. When firing a particle at two slits to see which way the particle would go, the particle goes through both. Only when physicists place a camera to capture the particlea particle was its exact location defined and it only travelled through one slit, otherwise when unobserved it is in all potential places at the same time. Or it is everywhere it can possible be all at the same time. Amazing isn't it.

We appear to be communicating a little better and less antagonistically here, I don't have time right now (although I would like to) address all the points you raise.

So the most important question perhaps "What is it that I believe ?" may help you understand where I'm coming from.

Unfortunately I don't actually believe anything but I am in favor of likelihoods in a "creator" paradigm ie I have opinions that are changeable when newer evidence ( presented to me) arise.

Unfortunately, my lack of education does somewhat hinder the language I use to express my ideas, which seems to have hindered this discourse.


Yes I do indeed find the particle/slit experiment totally mind blowing my thoughts on this are --

What if - (as I'm not completely closed minded to creation in a loose sense) we assume that there is a creative force.

That creative force is all that there is, "everything" is life and life is everything,all that there is.

Time is an illusion created for this universe in order to differentiate (a frame of reference), or create an illusion of separateness as nothing can be separate if there is only one thing.

The particle appears to be existing everywhere, or rather potentially existing everywhere, in that it is where we anticipate/expect it to be. Surely this is borne out by the observer effecting experiments ?

So there would seem to be that only the "now" actually exists and the after (tomorrow or the next millisecond) only exists as a possibility in an infinite choice of possibilities.

These possibilities only coming into existence (solidifying,taking form, becoming real in our imaginary world ?) according to our expectations/beliefs/fears/.

If all is life and and the creator (the father) is life then, the father/creator is all that there is, there is was nor ever will be any separation.

For any separateness to exist from the creator it would have to be illusion/artificial. Which would surely explain time being an imaginary construct a frame of reference to experience the illusion separateness ?

To use my own analogy - (the only thing my my simple swede could think of as I have a headache so bare with me) Could we be like, thoughts in droplets of water, which are in a tub of water?

We do not know anything other than water ie outside the tub, all is water but if each droplet is allocated a number/identity, then we have the illusion of separateness/difference but were in fact all made up of the same stuff.

If we then have the ability to project our thoughts/desires/beliefs onto the droplets which are all water(the same thing) and allocate them/it numbers/identities/realities/time.

If that makes any sense at all, could I then not ask - Whether Jesus was a real person or not, could the ideas that he is alleged to have be discussing this and he actually meant what he said.

"Whatsoever ever ye ask believing -----"

The only reason the add on "In my name" would be required is to convey some belief into someone who doesn't believe, or just doesn't get it.
"If you can't at this time believe in your own ability, then believe in mine, it makes no difference belief is belief"

So, fundamentally (in this proposition at least) there is no free will, there is only "will", the will of creation/life/the father god what ever label we choose, in action creating the illusion of separateness.

There you go there's my thoughts on that for now, I could change my mind in ten minutes lol. But that's the big difference between ideas and beliefs though isn't it, I can change my ideas quite easily, but beliefs ? Well we all know how deeply they are embedded.

reply to post by Melissa101


I would need to be able to at least comprehend (certainly not fully understand) how something perfect in all ways existed without a beginning and will have no end. It's easier to believe that the Universe just burst into being (and that God evolved within that Universe), than it is to believe that an absolutely perfect being has existed from all eternity. This is the main objection I have to traditional theistic belief systems - not just Christianity.

Peace,
Daniel

reply to post by spellbound


And you're comfortable with this post as the holder of a degree in Logic? Please let us know from which university you graduated, so we can steer our friends and acquaintances clear should they be interested in obtaining a degree in "Logic."

Peace,
Daniel

Originally posted by pdpayne0418
reply to post by spellbound

 

And you're comfortable with this post as the holder of a degree in Logic? Please let us know from which university you graduated, so we can steer our friends and acquaintances clear should they be interested in obtaining a degree in "Logic."

Peace,
Daniel

Degree in logic ?? What the hell is that when it's at home ?

Did he/she really claim that ? You sure ?

If a person can believe extraordinary claims of the supernatural, only requiring faith IE requiring no evidence, how the hell can the same person get some sort of degree in logic?

Christ that's like getting a degree in fairies surely ?