You can't close a "loophole" with an a priori assumption.
Which is nothing to do with the argument as presented.
Not doing very well, are you?
You have yet to show that there is a "loophole".
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist
- Thread starter Cris
- Start date
Not doing very well, are you?
You have yet to show that there is a "loophole".
Have you read the thread title?
Certainly.
Is this another red herring you're introducing?
The title relates to a specific proof.
What does your question have to do with anything I wrote in my previous post?
So the Paradox has to close before God can exist else he will create man, and the loophole is that he can create man anyway even if man has free will, but God knows what his creation will do.
Nope.
Nope. You persist in claiming there's a loophole but have yet to show that there is one.
Please do so or shut up.
Nope. So you are saying that God can exist in Chris's Paradox then, so it's not a Paradox. You are in a Paradox.
I don't expect somebody who posts Nope to the first part of my post which clearly illustrates the thread title, and refers to Chris's quote to admit that they are severely struggling with the problem.
Wrong.
As shown here:
Post #1657.Dywyddyr said:
Learn to read.
I am clearly stating that I disagree with YOUR claim that it's not a paradox.
One more time: I asked how your comments related to my questions.
YOU have claimed that it's not a paradox.
YOU have claimed there's a loophole.
Neither have been demonstrated so far.
They have been demonstrated, but you decided to make your own Paradox to ignore them, by allowing God to both exist, and not exist at the same time. Refusal of your mind to allow itself to be wrong.
Please either give them again or give post numbers.
Also wrong.
Please show where I have done this.
Are you making up your own answers here?
You've lost already.. give up.
So you can't show where it was demonstrated that it's not a paradox or that there's a loophole.
And you can't show where I have "decided to make your own Paradox to ignore them, by allowing God to both exist, and not exist at the same time".
You ARE making up your own answers.
Are you at all capable of being coherent?
Your mind is just refusing to allow the answer in.. give up.
Let's have a bit of fun with this anyway, because it is full of loopholes.. My replies are RED...
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
OK above is way off, we will get to that.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Above, not a Paradox, just word play, I will get to that as well.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Not true, we are getting to that...
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
OK, but nothing Paradoxial.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Effectively we have no choice in the matter? Free will is an illusion? OK first problem to sort out. You can have Free Will even if somebody knows what you are going to do. I can jump to the future, and see what people are going to do, but that doesn't suddenly alter their free will. I can create someone with Free Will, and jump to their future, they still have Free Will. Secondly, believing that Jesus is our saviour need not necessarily mean that Jesus was our saviour when we were given free will. God could see that just SAYING that Jesus is our saviour will alter our future enough for us to become better people. It needn't be true. It is not loss of Free Will, although it is a fork in our journey that wouldn't be there otherwise. But a fork is not a loss of Free Will. It is a nudge of Free Will.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
So what if he knows our decisions? Free Will is not lost because somebody looked into your future. You include coercion as a loss of Free Will, well Free Will can be coerced, you are just giving it a nudge.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Because he only has to say it to effect our future, it doesn't need to be true. There may not be eternal damnation, but God saw that by saying that, all of a sudden in our future we were a lot nicer people. You tell a child not to be naughty else they will go on the naughty step, but it is coercion, not taking away their Free Will. We also have a choice not to believe in it.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
Yeah, well that is based on bad arguments.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
Based on bad arguments.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
Seeing our future also provides a way to use words as forks to make us better people, and although we may fork off in a different direction, it is not a loss of Free Will. I can't walk through a wall, is that loss of free will? If God saw that by saying we will go to Hell, and it improved our future then that still works, and if some people didn't believe it it was their Free Will not to believe it.
I don't believe in God by the way. But I do believe in Free Will combined with coercion..
Proof that the Christian god cannot exist.
OK above is way off, we will get to that.
This is a revision and refinement of a post I made over a year ago but there are so many new members now that I felt it worth a revisit.
Omniscience vs. Human Free will. A Paradox.
Above, not a Paradox, just word play, I will get to that as well.
Omniscience: Perfect knowledge of past and future events.
Free will: Freedom to choose between alternatives without external coercion.
Paradox: Statements or events that have contradictory and inconsistent properties.
Proposal:
Christianity cannot claim that God is omniscient and also claim that humans have free will. The claims form a paradox, a falsehood.
Not true, we are getting to that...
Reasoning:
If God is omniscient then even before we are born God will have complete knowledge of every decision we are going to make.
OK, but nothing Paradoxial.
Any apparent choice we make regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior is predetermined. This must be true to satisfy the assertion that God is omniscient. Effectively we have no choice in the matter. What we think is free will is an illusion. Our choices have been coerced since we exist and act according to the will of God.
Effectively we have no choice in the matter? Free will is an illusion? OK first problem to sort out. You can have Free Will even if somebody knows what you are going to do. I can jump to the future, and see what people are going to do, but that doesn't suddenly alter their free will. I can create someone with Free Will, and jump to their future, they still have Free Will. Secondly, believing that Jesus is our saviour need not necessarily mean that Jesus was our saviour when we were given free will. God could see that just SAYING that Jesus is our saviour will alter our future enough for us to become better people. It needn't be true. It is not loss of Free Will, although it is a fork in our journey that wouldn't be there otherwise. But a fork is not a loss of Free Will. It is a nudge of Free Will.
Alternatively if human free will is valid, meaning that the outcome of our decisions is not pre-determined or coerced, then God cannot be omniscient, since he would not know in advance our decisions.
So what if he knows our decisions? Free Will is not lost because somebody looked into your future. You include coercion as a loss of Free Will, well Free Will can be coerced, you are just giving it a nudge.
Question:
If God knows the decision of every individual, before they are born, regarding the acceptance or denial of Jesus as a savior, then why does he create one set of individuals destined for heaven and another set destined for eternal damnation? This seems unjust, perverse and particularly evil.
Because he only has to say it to effect our future, it doesn't need to be true. There may not be eternal damnation, but God saw that by saying that, all of a sudden in our future we were a lot nicer people. You tell a child not to be naughty else they will go on the naughty step, but it is coercion, not taking away their Free Will. We also have a choice not to believe in it.
Conclusions:
If God is omniscient then humans do not have free will (see argument above) and the apparent arbitrary choice of God to condemn many individuals to eternal damnation is evil. I.e. God does not possess the property of omni benevolence and is therefore not worth our attention.
Yeah, well that is based on bad arguments.
If humans have true free will then God cannot be omniscient (see argument above). If he is not omniscient then he also cannot be omnipotent since knowledge of the future is a prerequisite for total action. Without these abilities God can no longer be deemed a god – i.e. God does not exist.
Based on bad arguments.
If humans do not have free will then the choice of whether to choose Jesus as a savior or not makes total nonsense of Christianity since the choice is pre-determined and we are merely puppets at the hands of an evil monster.
Seeing our future also provides a way to use words as forks to make us better people, and although we may fork off in a different direction, it is not a loss of Free Will. I can't walk through a wall, is that loss of free will? If God saw that by saying we will go to Hell, and it improved our future then that still works, and if some people didn't believe it it was their Free Will not to believe it.
I don't believe in God by the way. But I do believe in Free Will combined with coercion..
Last edited:
kx000
Valued Senior Member
Stay with me. God is omniscent, in the sense of the word he knows all that was, all that is, and all that will be. How does he? Great reason. God has the ability to see and hear through any living thing on earth. He didn't reason the end because he knows how its going to happen, he knows its going to happen because he's two steps ahead of you. He knows you are about to make a right hand turn, he's not going to force you to do that. God is omniscent, man has free will.
And you're apparently lying.
And another mere claim with absolutely no logic and no support.
Isn't it strange how people fail to address (or even use) logic and reasoning?
"It's like that because it just is".
Exactly. Apart from lots of logic.. just that you head doesn't contain the tools for logic to be put through a series of synapses. It's possible that you don't have free will but I do.
Wrong again.
You have presented no logic, simply restated the paradox and claimed that it is true regardless.
You have given no explanation, no rationale, nothing.
And I'm still waiting for you to re-present (or point out) the information that you have claimed was previously given. Or is lying going to be your modus operandi too?
Do you actually understand what logic is? Because you don't appear to.