Intermediate step to beginning of life uncovered

[Benton]

(06-18-2015, 01:28 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Hold the phone there Ben...It's certainly not that I am not listening....It's that I completely disagree with you.  These are long debated concepts that smarter men than you and I have discussed.  I highly doubt that it comes down to one person or another is or isn't listening.  

I think you and I are smarterer than many of them. Surely we can settle this.

Surely.

(06-18-2015, 01:30 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: I agree but for different reasons than you do...which is the actual debate.  Who is not listening?  

You aren't.

Apparently.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2015, 12:35 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Because you made the wrong decisions while you were here. 

That was your fault.

Yes.

[SteelCitySouth]

(06-18-2015, 03:16 PM)Benton Wrote: I think you and I are smarterer than many of them. Surely we can settle this.

Surely.



You aren't.

Apparently.

1.  First sentence is probably true.  Second is hope.  Thirst is realization.

2.  Nu-hu...you aren't.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2015, 12:42 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: If God knows you will reject him in the end, it's because you chose to do it while you were here. Not because he made it that way.

The winning numbers were always the winning numbers once they were drawn. 

You're not getting any argument from me that once the outcome happens, that's the way it always was. My argument is, omniscience is only aware of the outcome, it doesn't effect the outcome. It was always that way because that's the path it took.

God's knowledge of which numbers will be drawn is based upon once they are drawn. He didn't affect which numbers were drawn. He simply knows the numbers. Knowing the numbers doesn't affect which numbers are drawn. But any other combination of numbers are impossible because his foreknowledge is based upon what will happen/happened not because of his knowledge of what will happen. His knowledge of "x" is because "x" happened. His knowledge of your act is secondary to your act. If your act is"y" his knowledge of your act is "y". If your act is "z" his knowledge of your act is "z".

If His knowledge is "z" your act cannot be "x".  Your act can only be "z" because once you do "z" he knows it.

Conclusions (Heaven/Hell) are based upon data (your actions.) If the data doesn't support the conclusion then the concludion is wrong. God doesn't make wrong conclusions. If his conclusion is I will go to Hell then his conclusion is based upon what he knows I did in the future after I did it. Therefore, I can't do anything to change God's conclusion because that would prove God wrong.

[Benton]

(06-18-2015, 03:55 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: God's knowledge of which numbers will be drawn is based upon once they are drawn. He didn't affect which numbers were drawn. He simply knows the numbers. Knowing the numbers doesn't affect which numbers are drawn. But any other combination of numbers are impossible because his foreknowledge is based upon what will happen/happened not because of his knowledge of what will happen. His knowledge of "x" is because "x" happened. His knowledge of your act is secondary to your act. If your act is"y" his knowledge of your act is "y". If your act is "z" his knowledge of your act is "z".

If His knowledge is "z" your act cannot be "x".  Your act can only be "z" because once you do "z" he knows it.

Conclusions (Heaven/Hell) are based upon data (your actions.) If the data doesn't support the conclusion then the concludion is wrong. God doesn't make wrong conclusions. If his conclusion is I will go to Hell then his conclusion is based upon what he knows I did in the future after I did it. Therefore, I can't do anything to change God's conclusion because that would prove God wrong.

Sooooo close.

It's not a conclusion, it's knowledge of an event after it's happened. Like you said, this "is based upon what he knows I did in the future after I did it." You're looking at it as A, B, C. A is your thought of an action, B is the action, C is the repercussion. You look at it that way because that's how you understand time. A-C.

He doesn't. Your A, B, C all happened, to Him, at the same time.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

I went to the Braves' game Wednesday night. Thursday afternoon it is impossible for me to go back and decide to do something other than go to the Braves game. Thursday afternoon God knows I went to the Braves game last night. Back up to Tuesday the day before I went to the Braves' game. Tuesday God knows I will go to the Braves' game Wednesday night because on Thursday he knows I went and I can't change that. So on Tuesday guess where I'll be going Wednesday night? I will be going to the Braves game because on Thursday God knew I went on Wednesday. Which means on Tuesday it is impossible for me to go anywhere but the Braves game on Wednesday night...because God knew what I was going to do before I did it because he knew what I did after I did it (knowledge of the past and future in the present simultaneously.) He didn't influence my decision to go to the Braves game with his knowledge of what I did Wednesday night. God can know the past, present, and future simultaneously, but that doesn't change what I did Tuesday, Wednesday, or Thursday.

[Beaker]

(06-18-2015, 12:36 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: I've answered that about a billion times. 

Your argument is flawed.

Its not my argument. Its plain logic. And the only flaw is your attempt to repeatedly avoid the obvious.

[Beaker]

(06-18-2015, 12:35 PM)rfaulk34 Wrote: Because you made the wrong decisions while you were here. 

That was your fault.

His decisions didnt matter. Because god already knew the decisions he would make BEFORE even creating him. If he didnt, then god isnt really all knowing.

[Beaker]

(06-18-2015, 01:04 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Omniscience doesn't mean that your course is plotted already. The idea behind it is (if God chooses to know) he knows you better than you know yourself. He knows what decisions you will make. They weren't made for you. There is a distinct difference there.

And yet created you with that knowledge....just to condemn you to hell.

[Benton]

(06-18-2015, 05:42 PM)Beaker Wrote: And yet created you with that knowledge....just to condemn you to hell.

Hell is open to a lot of interpretation. It may be condemning you to the cosmic equivalent of a time out, in other words, not much punishment at all. Or it could be like revival preachers talk about with fire and brimstone.

If there was no  punishment, if was all carrot and no stick, do you think it would have any effect? Do you only reward your students without providing an option that will negatively impact them? If they don't do their test, do you just give them a hug and an A and tell them to maybe try next time if they want to?

And, if you do, does it work? At all?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2015, 04:14 PM)Benton Wrote: Sooooo close.

It's not a conclusion, it's knowledge of an event after it's happened. Like you said, this "is based upon what he knows I did in the future after I did it." You're looking at it as A, B, C. A is your thought of an action, B is the action, C is the repercussion. You look at it that way because that's how you understand time. A-C.

He doesn't. Your A, B, C all happened, to Him, at the same time.

Get a rope and hold it horizontally in front of you between your two hands. The rope near your left hand represents your past and to the right your future, the center is the present.

Now make a loop.

Where the loop intersects is where your past and future intersect the present. That point represents God's knowledge of what you did before you did it while in the present. That is nonlinear thinking.

Arguing God is omniscient but chooses not to know the future is like holding the rope out in front of you and pretending the right half of the rope doesn't exist. That is linear thinking.

Also, if a god is omnipotent the god is also omniscient. You can't be omnipotent if you're not omniscient, also. So if someone calls a god  omnipotent they are omniscient by definition. Whereas a god can be omniscient, but not omnipotent.

[Benton]

(06-18-2015, 05:48 PM)oncemoreuntothejimbreech Wrote: Get a rope and hold it horizontally in front of you between your two hands. The rope near your left hand represents your past and to the right your future, the center is the present.

Now make a loop.

Where the loop intersects is where your past and future intersect the present. That point represents God's knowledge of what you did before you did it while in the present. That is nonlinear thinking.

Arguing God is omniscient but chooses not to know the future is like holding the rope out in front of you and pretending the right half of the rope doesn't exist. That is linear thinking.

Also, if a god is omnipotent the god is also omniscient. You can't be omnipotent if you're not omniscient, also. So if someone calls a god  omnipotent they are omniscient by definition. Whereas a god can be omniscient, but not omnipotent.

Not exactly. A line in a circle is still a line. It's still linear, you're just bringing those ends together.

Think instead of a sphere. Pick a spot and hold your finger on it. If your finger is big enough or fast enough you can touch the entire surface of the sphere at the same time.

That's God. Touching the entire sphere, all those points in time, at once.

God knows all the surface of the sphere, all those points in time, because he's touching them all at the same time. Beginning, end and everything in between, it's the same moment.

[SteelCitySouth]

this shiz is hysterical.

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2015, 05:56 PM)Benton Wrote: Not exactly. A line in a circle is still a line. It's still linear, you're just bringing those ends together.

Think instead of a sphere. Pick a spot and hold your finger on it. If your finger is big enough or fast enough you can touch the entire surface of the sphere at the same time.

That's God. Touching the entire sphere, all those points in time, at once.

God knows all the surface of the sphere, all those points in time, because he's touching them all at the same time. Beginning, end and everything in between, it's the same moment.

Fine. I believe you yourself stated his knowledge doesn't affect the decision.

Apply your spherical representation of God's time-knowledge continuum (for lack of a better word so to speak) to my analogy of going to the Braves game. How does your spherical representation change anything I wrote?

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2015, 05:56 PM)Benton Wrote: Not exactly. A line in a circle is still a line. It's still linear, you're just bringing those ends together.

It is physical representation of time. Does the future loop back upon itself to join the past in the present on a linear timeline?  No. Time only advances forward in a linear timeline. Damn't now I have to review linear time cosmology. Mother f'er!  

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2015, 05:56 PM)Benton Wrote: Beginning, end and everything in between, it's the same moment.

So at the same moment of Creation, He knew the results oh all your decisions, and ultimately whether you would go to Heaven or Hell in the same moment.

[StLucieBengal]

(06-12-2015, 11:37 PM)Beaker Wrote: I am trying to do a better job on this board and not sling mud, and to keep discussions civil. But there is so much wrong with this post that I am having a very hard time doing so.

The whole idea of science is that they are constantly wrong... You need a lot of wrog answers to get a right one.

What on earth is wrong about that .....

[oncemoreuntothejimbreech]

(06-18-2015, 08:00 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: The whole idea of science is that they are constantly wrong...  You need a lot of wrog answers to get a right one.  

What on earth is wrong about that .....

The whole idea of science is learning.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-18-2015, 01:14 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: Well, I don't believe anything causes my future to happen.  We are discussing the flawed reasoning that God can be omniscient/omnipotent, know your future prior to your creation and yet at the same time provide you with free will...it's nonsense.  It's nonsense because your future can not be known if nothing is causing your future.

Your future is going to happen. Period. There's nothing that will not make it happen. Whether you go on for another 60 years, or whether the Sun explodes and we're all gone tomorrow, the future is guaranteed to happen. 

Everything that happens causes your future, so i'm not sure what you're implying by saying "nothing" is causing your future.

If you think you can know what a Deity is capable of and what they are not capable of, more power to ye. I don't believe you can though.

[*rfaulk34*]

(06-18-2015, 01:15 PM)SteelCitySouth Wrote: You missed a word and it is the reason you are struggling with the concept.

"Will" is not necessary. I'm already aware, as you are, that it's not happened yet. I don't see where any part of this disagrees with anything i've said.