Proof God doesn't exist?
- Thread starter Ekimklaw
- Start date
re: free will
I have an aunt who is a JW, when I present her with the argument of free will vs predestanation she says that God has free will also and choses to look forward into the future as he pleases. If he doesnt look forward then he choses not to know the future. I dont know if a god can do that, chose what to know but it makes one think. Surely an all powerful god can put limitations on himself.
I have an aunt who is a JW, when I present her with the argument of free will vs predestanation she says that God has free will also and choses to look forward into the future as he pleases. If he doesnt look forward then he choses not to know the future. I dont know if a god can do that, chose what to know but it makes one think. Surely an all powerful god can put limitations on himself.
And I guess fathers don't always know the difference between both, but god who is higher than all fathers in all aspects do.
PS. For god to be given the quality for the father, the father adjective must match god back in all qualities. God is the mercifull, the compassionate, the just, the avenger, the one, the ever lasting, the pardoner, the high, the beginner, the end, ect...A father is a sperm donor, a husband, a team player, a lover, a not so just person when it comes to his children because he prefers them to all others, ect.....A god is not a father and a father is not a god.
I don't think the quality of a father match up to god and I don't think god can fit in the limited father role figure.
Agreed.
Here is where Cris makes his mistake. He/She seems to think that the knowledge which results in pre-determination effects the choices made. In fact it doesn't. But is it vice versa [choices affect knowledge]? Of course. But the fact that the choices made affects the knowledge does not negate the omniscience.
This has been addressed close to 50 times, I'm sure, on this forum - it's either these people don't read or their heads are as thick as Venus' atmosphere. My goodness, holy crap, what the hell?!?!? When will it end???
Therefore this conclusion has no real basis.
No of course not. It is merely an indication of relationship, as I said. You call Allah "most merciful", but that doesn't mean God is limited to being merciful, does it? It represents one facet of our experience of Him. Jesus called God "Father", and said with God's Spirit within us, we would call Him the same.
We can rationally say that on an idea on what WE ourselve have observed to be true that god rationally would not exist however there is no actuall possible way to say he does or does not exist as we do not have actuall documented proof
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
No, you read a story written decades after the event which baselessly asserts that someone named Yeshua said some such thing.
MarcAC,
It is extremely simple. If the outcome of an event is known before it occurs then it has been predetermined. If God is omniscient then everything will have been predetermined and human free will cannot exist since the two states are mutually exclusive.
I have made no statement about how events are pre-determined.
Nope. I’ve not thought or said anything like that.
The perceived choices cannot affect the knowledge if the knowledge preceded the alleged choices.
That is backwards but if so then so what? If omniscience exists then it necessarily follows that everything has been pre-determined, and hence free-will is impossible.
So why the heck don’t you get it?
It is extremely simple. If the outcome of an event is known before it occurs then it has been predetermined. If God is omniscient then everything will have been predetermined and human free will cannot exist since the two states are mutually exclusive.
I have made no statement about how events are pre-determined.
I know what kind of documented proof you would prefer, though: One that doesn't claim to have proof :bugeye:
Your point being? People read stories written billions of years after the event that a big bang happened and they believe that, some people even believe in Julius Caesar!
. I have challenged you before to substantiate your statements and you have ignored me. Hint: the part of us calling Him Father is found in Paul's epistles to the Romans (8:15) and the Galatians (4:6).
Jenyar,
There is a critical difference. The big bang theory is a description of facts that can be observed today, and where the ‘story’ will be readily discarded if a better theory is developed if more facts are discovered. Whereas, it is unknown whether the Jesus story is based on any observed facts, and is certainly not based on any facts observable today.
And rightly so because there are numerous independent and unbiased reliable historical records to reference. There are no such quality records to support the claims for Jesus.
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
This from the vapid pedant who taught us that the Septuagint was a reference to the "70 Books".
I'm sure one could find David Koresh "calling Him Father" as well. So what? Neither were 1st hand witnesses.
Jenyar,
- Which variant of Deuteronomy do you support?
- Which ending of Mark is real?
- Which version of the Prodigal Son was spoken?
- Which redaction of the "Lord's Prayer" do you pray?
Answering my question with questions? Very well... if it makes you happy. But I still expect you to substantiate.
* Which variant of Deuteronomy do you support?
I don't "support" them, they "support" the culture who used them, and hence also my faith. Or do you think each make different laws? Were the Jews running to and fro between them?
Deut. 4:35
Septuagint: and there is none beside him (Gr. kai ouk estin eti plhn autou)
New Testament quotation in Mark 12:32: and there is none other but he (Gr. kai ouk estin alloV plhn autou
Masoretic Text: there is none else besides him
If you have specific differences in mind, please point them out.
* Which ending of Mark is real?
"Real"?
You'd be surprised how the structural and typological construction of many parts of the Bible (presumably to aid in the original oral tradition) help informs its teachings:
Our second method of literary analysis is an argument from the Gospel theme, viewed as an Elijah midrash. The Elijah cycle in I & II Kings consists of six distinct narratives. Within the body of Mark's Gospel, we find allusions to the first five of these six narratives—all except the account of Elijah's translation into heaven. The disputed passage at the end of Mark 16 consummates the Gospel's Elijah theme, describing Christ's ascension into heaven using language drawn from the Septuagint account of Elijah's translation. - A surprising case for the longer ending of Mark
Even if a part of the text somehow went missing, literary structures (called here "deltaforms") make it possible to at least reconstruct the meaning and intention. Like light temporarily occluded. The missing part can be triangulated. The surrounding story doesn't just "flesh out" the message, it contextualizes it. This literary style was a means of preservation not creation. The same events could be modelled on different themes, and by "fulfilling scripture" in different acts and events, Jesus might have encouraged such paralellisms to his life and teaching.
Even if I believe that an ending of Mark was inserted later, I could still get the same message from somewhere else in the Bible. Fortunately I don't consider Mark to be the only source of Scripture. The epistles predate it in writing.
* Which version of the Prodigal Son was spoken?
As a parable, I'm sure you are aware that it does not refer to a real event. It has a structure of its own, and is not found in isolation but in context of two other parable. Then there is also the cultural context: the son treats his father is if he were already dead. He just wanted his money; a son never ever asked for an inheritance until after the death of his parent.
1 A son is lost - "Give me my share"
| 2 Goods wasted in extravagant living
| | 3 Everything lost - "He spent everything-he began to want
| | | 4 The great sin - "feeding pigs for gentiles
| | | | 5 Total rejection - "no one gave him anything
| | | | | 6 A change of mind - "he came to himself-I perish here"
| | | | | 6 An initial repentance - "make me a servant"
| | | | 5 Total acceptance - "his father ran and kissed him."
| | | 4 The great repentance - "I am no more worthy to be called your son.
| | 3 Everything gained - a robe, ring, and shoes
| 2 Goods used in joyful celebration
1 A son is found - "My son was dead and is alive, was lost and is found."
(Source: The Prodigal Son)
Whichever version was told at any particular time, it would have included the same morals. The ones we have, are difference versions of the same story. They are dedactic, not historic.
* Which redaction of the "Lord's Prayer" do you pray?
The prayer is a dialogue, believe it or not, of transaction and negotiation, asking forgiveness/care and giving praise/allegiance. The same as with the parables, the prayer would tought to whoever was asking, more than once, in different words, but with the same principles.
As you'll know, it is not words that save, but God. Since I believe in 1)God as my holy Father 2)recognize His will over mine, 3)depend on Him for sustenance, 4)want to ask His forgiveness 5)without being hypocritical, 6)and place my hope and wellbeing in His hands.
I pray the Lord's prayer in my own words.
BTW. I've gotten rather fond of my new title, "Jenyar of the 70 books". I'll ask Flores to translate it into Arabic. I bet it sounds cool...
* Which variant of Deuteronomy do you support?
I don't "support" them, they "support" the culture who used them, and hence also my faith. Or do you think each make different laws? Were the Jews running to and fro between them?
Deut. 4:35
Septuagint: and there is none beside him (Gr. kai ouk estin eti plhn autou)
New Testament quotation in Mark 12:32: and there is none other but he (Gr. kai ouk estin alloV plhn autou
Masoretic Text: there is none else besides him
If you have specific differences in mind, please point them out.
* Which ending of Mark is real?
"Real"?
You'd be surprised how the structural and typological construction of many parts of the Bible (presumably to aid in the original oral tradition) help informs its teachings:
Our second method of literary analysis is an argument from the Gospel theme, viewed as an Elijah midrash. The Elijah cycle in I & II Kings consists of six distinct narratives. Within the body of Mark's Gospel, we find allusions to the first five of these six narratives—all except the account of Elijah's translation into heaven. The disputed passage at the end of Mark 16 consummates the Gospel's Elijah theme, describing Christ's ascension into heaven using language drawn from the Septuagint account of Elijah's translation. - A surprising case for the longer ending of Mark
Even if a part of the text somehow went missing, literary structures (called here "deltaforms") make it possible to at least reconstruct the meaning and intention. Like light temporarily occluded. The missing part can be triangulated. The surrounding story doesn't just "flesh out" the message, it contextualizes it. This literary style was a means of preservation not creation. The same events could be modelled on different themes, and by "fulfilling scripture" in different acts and events, Jesus might have encouraged such paralellisms to his life and teaching.
Even if I believe that an ending of Mark was inserted later, I could still get the same message from somewhere else in the Bible. Fortunately I don't consider Mark to be the only source of Scripture. The epistles predate it in writing.
* Which version of the Prodigal Son was spoken?
As a parable, I'm sure you are aware that it does not refer to a real event. It has a structure of its own, and is not found in isolation but in context of two other parable. Then there is also the cultural context: the son treats his father is if he were already dead. He just wanted his money; a son never ever asked for an inheritance until after the death of his parent.
1 A son is lost - "Give me my share"
| 2 Goods wasted in extravagant living
| | 3 Everything lost - "He spent everything-he began to want
| | | 4 The great sin - "feeding pigs for gentiles
| | | | 5 Total rejection - "no one gave him anything
| | | | | 6 A change of mind - "he came to himself-I perish here"
| | | | | 6 An initial repentance - "make me a servant"
| | | | 5 Total acceptance - "his father ran and kissed him."
| | | 4 The great repentance - "I am no more worthy to be called your son.
| | 3 Everything gained - a robe, ring, and shoes
| 2 Goods used in joyful celebration
1 A son is found - "My son was dead and is alive, was lost and is found."
(Source: The Prodigal Son)
Whichever version was told at any particular time, it would have included the same morals. The ones we have, are difference versions of the same story. They are dedactic, not historic.
* Which redaction of the "Lord's Prayer" do you pray?
The prayer is a dialogue, believe it or not, of transaction and negotiation, asking forgiveness/care and giving praise/allegiance. The same as with the parables, the prayer would tought to whoever was asking, more than once, in different words, but with the same principles.
As you'll know, it is not words that save, but God. Since I believe in 1)God as my holy Father 2)recognize His will over mine, 3)depend on Him for sustenance, 4)want to ask His forgiveness 5)without being hypocritical, 6)and place my hope and wellbeing in His hands.
I pray the Lord's prayer in my own words.
BTW. I've gotten rather fond of my new title, "Jenyar of the 70 books". I'll ask Flores to translate it into Arabic. I bet it sounds cool...
Last edited:
ConsequentAtheist
Registered Senior Member
How nice that neither of us take you seriously.Originally posted by Jenyar
BTW. I've gotten rather fond of my new title, "Jenyar of the 70 books". I'll ask Flores to translate it into Arabic. I bet it sounds cool...