The point I'm trying to make in general is that you have a very narrow view on what a god or creator should be. This is possibly related to you spending too much time around Catholics.

It is based on those assumptions that you base your disproving theories, wich can only be used to actually prove that not everything that the Bible says is true... wich I think is pretty much a given, when you think about the different things that contradict each other in it.

I know what some people in history did, but that doesn't mean that I made them do it. In the same way, people in the future will know what some people do now, but that doesn't mean force them to do it. In other words, knowledge of an event is not what causes that event to happen. Therefore, God knowing what we will do is compatible with free will.

darwyn lets say that know every decision that you are ever going to make but i decide not to tell you what those decisions are or when you made them. Does this not mean that i know everything about your life but i did not persuade you to make them the way you choose. Therefore you still have free will to make any decision you want i just know the one you are going to pick.

...whoops...i meant "lets say i know" not "lets say know"

"Yes there can. I've explained the possibilities before"

I didn't address these because they make no sense...here...

"If he was to make himself known, he might have his reasons to want to be interpreted differently in different times or by different people."

This only proves that god's nature is deceitful. And if it's in gods nature to be deceitful, it defines him as the devil.

"Well, now you're assuming those are the ones he actually talked to."

Are you suggesting he never spoke to Jesus, his own son? How did Jesus know he'd save mankind from sin by being crucified then? Quite a gamble to put yourself out there for, eh? Even so, he surely spoke with Moses, right?

"The point I'm trying to make in general is that you have a very narrow view on what a god or creator should be."

Should be? Or is? Your choice of words here are a bit revealing actually. For one, "should be" used in this context indicates that each individual can interpret what god is. And that's precisely my point. Everyone interprets him as they want to or as the priest who claims he speaks to tells you.

Now think about that. One person tells me he talks to god and that god is one thing...another person tells me that god is something else. Why did god tell each of those people different things?

Either
1) they are making shit up...or
2) god is deceitful and therefore, not worthy of praise.

Is there another conclusion that doesn't involve an allusion to "god works in mysterious ways"?

I think you are accusing me of being too fundamental, when in fact, I think you aren't being fundamental enough.

@ zuzak - Is not omniscience, knowing all? If you look it up, one definition is: infinite knowledge.

Infinite is definitely suggestive of time...therefore, god sees everything past, present and future. And if he sees it, it never changes...because change is inherently already seen. Therefore your life is predetermined.

There cannot exist an omniscient god at the same time humans have free will. Impossible.

WhiteSammy -

If you can see everything I am ever going to do, then I don't have free will. My life path has been determined, I just don't know it.

That's a huge difference. I can choose anything I want at any time, but you'll have already seen it. I can never escape my destiny, no matter what I do.

Let's assume god is omniscient and can see everything that everyone does at all times. And let's say that his ability to keep tabs on us humans at all times is representative of a infinitely layered ball of cause and effect.

So when he looks at this, it's just a ball. It never changes. It will never NOT be a ball.

lol...does that make sense?

Okay, people. We're forgetting one extremely important piece of evidence (at least in the Christianity argument).

The Bible.

Why would ALL of those authors have ANY reason to lie? More importantly, the Bible was written over the course of hundreds of years, much more than the lifespan of any author. Also, the Bible (and God) never contradicts it(him)self. I was raised in a Christian home (God bless my good fortune) so that is the source of my beliefs.

What mystifies me is why atheists/agnostics even EXIST, because all evidence (scientific, Biblical, and otherwise) is heavily stacked against their (lack of) beliefs. As for evolution (which is their chief argument), how can something be created out of nothing. Also, how could a single-celled organism develop into a being as complex as a human? The odds of evolution being true are one in one hundred trillion. Want a number? (I may be off by a few decimal places) Here it is:

1 in 100000000000000.

That's essentially zero. How can scientists calculate that? Take the odds of all of the necessary proteins and DNA, among other things, all being in the same spot, in the correct order, and somehow fusing into a singe-celled organism.

Impossible.

"Hmmmmm, looks like the Bible was right after all and diplomat1824 wasn't full of crap after all."

--what you are thinking right now

If that's not a potent argument, then I don't know what is.

To us humans, we think we have choice and free will. I can choose to get up right now and go outside. But if god already knows that I will do this, how was it really a choice of mine?

To god, it was already set in stone...a given.

I can try to outwit god by choosing instead to get up and, instead of going outside, getting a cup of coffee.

But by the definition of an omniscient god, he will already have known I would do THAT. So again, what real choice is there of mine?

I stopped reading here:

"Why would ALL of those authors have ANY reason to lie?"

Why would does anyone have a reason to lie? To manipulate. Humans are good at that. In fact, we are on this very site because WE all think we are good at it.

1 in 100000000000000.

I'd bet there are more stars in the universe than this. So what are the chances then? 1:1 at least. :)

diplomat - you realize that nothing in the Bible is an original story? Every single concept in the Bible had been written about or told in some form by others...before Christianity even existed.

In fact, Christianity itself is nothing but an amalgam of other religions. Many of them Egyptian.

ok...I need to stop. :) Sorry for dominating this thread...I should go.

darwyn it may be predetermined but do you not have the free will to make the decision for yourself even though i know your choice? I do not affect your free will by knowing the results any more than me not knowing the results.

darwyn...were you tortured by some extreme sect of christianity when you were a child? Or maybe it was the church of christ people(those annoying little buggers who go door to door in pairs and try to force christianity upon others).

OK, so you say, because God perceives it, my life is predetermined "by me". Well If I determined it (even in advance) then I had the WILL to determine it, so I had/have free will. Free will is that the individual determines (whether in advance or at the moment) their own path. You just admitted that I predetermine my own life. I disagree, however that I predtermine it. Think of omniscience as a perfect crystal ball looking into the future. God knows what my decision will be, but I still make it, therefore I have free will.

"I didn't address these because they make no sense...here..."

¿?

"This only proves that god's nature is deceitful. And if it's in gods nature to be deceitful, it defines him as the devil."

It proves nothing because I said 'might'. You have too many structures into your head, its impossible to discuss with you.

"Are you suggesting he never spoke to Jesus, his own son? How did Jesus know he'd save mankind from sin by being crucified then? Quite a gamble to put yourself out there for, eh? Even so, he surely spoke with Moses, right?"

I'm not suggesting anything, I'm saying I don't know. And, again, you are assuming Jesus is his own son, wich I don't.

"Should be? Or is? Your choice of words here are a bit revealing actually. For one, "should be" used in this context indicates that each individual can interpret what god is. And that's precisely my point. Everyone interprets him as they want to or as the priest who claims he speaks to tells you."

No, 'should be' is because you believe there is no God, hence you speak about what he "should be" and not about what he "is". You believe there is no God and you "prove" it by assuming God has a bunch of attributes and then proving that he can't have them. I'm asking why you assume he has them, and you answer discussing semanthycs. Very to the point.

*** Now think about that. One person tells me he talks to god and that god is one thing...another person tells me that god is something else. Why did god tell each of those people different things? ***

I offered many possible explanations. If you wish to rebutt each of them, I'll be waiting.

"Either
1) they are making shit up...or
2) god is deceitful and therefore, not worthy of praise."

1 is quite likely in most cases. 2 is a stretch. Why is him not telling the whole truth to anyone enough reason not to praise him? You wouldn't tell your children the whole truth about everything, yet I believe they should listen to you.

"Is there another conclusion that doesn't involve an allusion to "god works in mysterious ways"?""

Yes, I ask you to reread.

"I think you are accusing me of being too fundamental, when in fact, I think you aren't being fundamental enough."

I shall put this in the box where I keep my unexpected compliments. Thank you.

"Let's assume god is omniscient and can see everything that everyone does at all times. And let's say that his ability to keep tabs on us humans at all times is representative of a infinitely layered ball of cause and effect.

So when he looks at this, it's just a ball. It never changes. It will never NOT be a ball."

Again, re-read. Scientific Determinism and Heisenberg Principle.

@Draugnar
Back to your dog example. If you knew that your dog would get mildly sick and learn a lesson from eating something it shouldn't, then I can see your logic. But what if you knew that your dog would die (or kill another dog) by eating something (or doing something) that it shouldn't? Would you then intervene? Or would you let your dog really learn its lesson killing itself?

Is it true that atheists have very vulnerable egos

I would intervene, but I'm not omniscient (able to see that there might be something more and that all involved might or might not be OK), omnipotent (able to raise him back from the dead should I decide to), nor all-patient (able to wait because I know how the ending will turn out in excrutiating detail). In short, I'm not God. And I somehow think the bigger picture (you know, the "needs of the many" thread) comes into play with God such that he knows the needs of the many and that the path we take will reach the proper conclussion. If he didn't, I suspect he would intervene in a scale of Noah or Moses bringing the Jews out of Egypt or Christ rising from the dead and ascending before his followers eyes or one of the numerous other miracles of the old and new testament. that's what miracles are good for, to show mankind the path so more of us might chose to take it.

Oh, and diplomat's post is the dumbest in a long standing run of dumb posts.

by far one of the most frustrating things that i have to deal with whenever im sharing my faith with a person is when they talk about other "christians" that they know who live in ways that make them hypocrits. Therefore the person i am talking to sees no reason why they should devote their lives to some being who they cant see or touch or hear when the person they know does not live any differently than they do. I never force my faith i only talk about it. If they choose to accept christ then i know its from their heart and that i didnt persuade them in any way. Even though i would like for ever person i talk to to come to christ i know its not gonna happen.

"diplomat - you realize that nothing in the Bible is an original story? Every single concept in the Bible had been written about or told in some form by others...before Christianity even existed.

In fact, Christianity itself is nothing but an amalgam of other religions. Many of them Egyptian."
-darwyn

What dark crevasse of your ass did you pull that little tidbit from?

@ WhiteSammy - "I do not affect your free will by knowing the results any more than me not knowing the results."

But knowing the results is NOT having free will. The second any of my actions are revealed to you or anyone is the moment I lose free will. I may think I have chosen a particular course of action, but if you or god already know my choice, that action has been predetermined.

@ Xapi - "You have too many structures into your head, its impossible to discuss with you."

What structures?

"you are assuming Jesus is his own son, wich I don't."

I have assumed nothing. It's Christianity that assumes he is gods only son because that what Jesus claims.

"No, 'should be' is because you believe there is no God, hence you speak about what he "should be" and not about what he "is"."

So what is he? You and I cannot even agree as to what he is. THAT'S MY POINT?! I assume he is one thing, you assume he is something else. It is precisely this conflict that proves there is no god.

"I'm asking why you assume he has them, and you answer discussing semanthycs. Very to the point."

Well, what are your assumptions about him? If you can tell me what/who he is, I can show you 10 people that will disagree with you. Why is that?

Is it because you are right and they are wrong?

You telling me who you think your god is only proves my point even further!

Throughout history, "god" has taken the form of Zeus, Jupiter...blah, blah, blah...insert gods here. What makes YOUR interpretation and assumptions of god right? What makes it better than mine?

All those people who believed in Zeus, believed in them just as faithfully as you believe in your god. So belief is not proof of existence.

The one thing that should be agreed upon if god had truly made himself known is how many gods there are. To this day, people are polytheists.

The majority of religions have already come and gone. Religion is nothing but mythology.

Regarding the future... I quote Yoda... "Difficult to say... Always in motion is the future." I am somewhat mystified that no one here seems to see what Darwyn is saying. I totally agree with his model regarding free will. If the future can be known totally ahead of time with complete accuracy than that necessitates that the future is unchanging and predetermined. If the future is predetermined, then we have no actual free will (though we may have the illusion of it). Omniscience regarding the future necessitates that the future is predetermined... and therefore that there is no free-will.

I think what is going on is that people assume that God must exist... and that a God would be omniscient (based on what, I'm not sure) ...and people also assume that we have free-will (it certainly feels like we do most of the time) (but it's perhaps impossible to prove). So... they try to believe both... even though they are mutually exclusive.

Regarding the number of stars, the most recent number I saw, was that there were about 70 sextillion (or a 7 followed by 22 zeros) that are within the known universe (within the range of our telescopes currently). This number, therefore is essentially a minimum.

"What dark crevasse of your ass did you pull that little tidbit from?"

A simple look into the history of Christianity will tell you that.

Did you think that jesus being born of a virgin was an original concept?

http://www.infidels.org/library/historical/kersey_graves/16/chap5.html
Maia, mother of Sakia and Yasoda of Chrishna; Celestine, mother of the crucified Zunis; Chimalman, mother of Quexalcote; Semele, mother of the Egyptian Bacchus, and Minerva, mother of the Grecian Bacchus; Prudence, mother of Hercules; Alcmene, mother of Alcides; Shing- Mon, mother of Yu, and Mayence, mother of Hesus, were all as confidently believed to be pure, holy and chaste virgins, while giving birth to these Gods, sons of God, Saviors and sin-atoning Mediators, as was Mary, mother of Jesus, and long before her time.

There are a lot more concepts that permeate Christianity from far before it even existed.

a point of clarification... it is not the omniscience that determines that there must be no free will... it is the possibility of omniscience. We're not dealing with Schrodingers cat here. Flipping this concept on it's head might make it clearer: If there is free will, then no being (and no god) could ever see the future with absolute certainty. (because our free will could change the path of our future as it approaches and contradict their prediction)

yes, good point...and thank you.

"I have assumed nothing. It's Christianity that assumes he is gods only son because that what Jesus claims."

Are you making an allegation against Christianity or any belief at all?

If it is against Christianity, I won't bite, it's impossible to defend.
If it is against any belief, well, the Jesus comment is non important.

"So what is he? You and I cannot even agree as to what he is. THAT'S MY POINT?! I assume he is one thing, you assume he is something else. It is precisely this conflict that proves there is no god."

First, I don't assume anything. I'm just pondering options. As I have stated before, I have a 'feeling' about what he may be, but I can't be certain, so I'm not.

Second, I plundered through the holes on your attempt at a demonstration. So, the fact that two people believe God to be different things proves absolutely nothing.

"Well, what are your assumptions about him? If you can tell me what/who he is, I can show you 10 people that will disagree with you. Why is that?

Is it because you are right and they are wrong?"

It is because we see and understand things differently. I may be wrong, they may be wrong, we may all be right in a way. I can't know for sure. What I can say is that there is a basis for me to believe what I believe. And I'm certain most people have a basis for believing what they believe.

"You telling me who you think your god is only proves my point even further!

Throughout history, "god" has taken the form of Zeus, Jupiter...blah, blah, blah...insert gods here. What makes YOUR interpretation and assumptions of god right? What makes it better than mine?"

Well, mine is better for two reasons;

1 - I don't base it on faulty logic. Granted, I did not offer proof of my being right. But at least I didn't pretend to.
2 - I don't force it on the rest of you and treat you like you're stupid for not believing the same things I do.

"All those people who believed in Zeus, believed in them just as faithfully as you believe in your god. So belief is not proof of existence."

Of course not. I never claimed it to be.

"The one thing that should be agreed upon if god had truly made himself known is how many gods there are. To this day, people are polytheists."

I have shown this point to be wrong, and it still leaves out what I believe in, wich is that God exists but does not make himself known.

Please, re-read my earlier posts, you have not understood them.