sexual_chocolate

further, the being did not in any willful sense "control" the outcome; the only thing that "controlled" the outcome was the hypothesis that god knows the future in a complete way!

I think in this case one would only have the illusion of "choice". To the actor, it would certainly seem as if he/she were making choices, based on free will or what have you. But if from the vantage point of god one could see this all play out, freedom of choice would only be an illusion, since, again from the vantage point of god, every choice was the choice the agent must have made, since god had already seen it (remember, god cannot be surprised).

foreknowledge must by definition preclude certain actions, simply by virtue of being foreknowledge. it would be useless to speak of foreknowledge if the outcome was in doubt. if you didn't know what would happen, you wouldn't have foreknowledge. foreknowledge exerts no "controlling force" what-so-ever, but simply reads the map, if you will. in other words, if it wasn't known what would happen, then it wasn't known what would happen!

in other words, you are unable to do a single thing that god doesn't already know that you will do. if this is the case, then obviously you MUST do everything that god already knows you will do. remember, you CANNOT surprise god, it's impossible!

god never gets surprised, right? how could he, since he knows everything. he knows everything that has happened, and everything that WILL happen, right? he knows every thought you will have in the future, and every action you will take in the future. if the future wasn't already decided, then how could he know?

I'm not quite sure my argument indicated as much. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you. Can you explain what you mean?

Explain the carbon 14 problem? or is it easier to just discount it. Instead of Gish Galloping off to the next scenario, can you reply first to my original question regarding free will? Namely, if god knows everything, including the future, is it not true that he would have known the choices adam and eve would make? and if he knows our choices, then our choices must already be decided, yes? and if our choices are already decided, then there is no freedom of choice, only the illusion of freedom of choice, right? so the notion of free will is also then only an illusion? please tell me what you think, cuz i am curious how this might be reconciled.

Critics object to the often unstructured nature of the debates, what they call a "shotgun" approach to presenting many arguments, bouncing from one issue to another by continually throwing out new claims without bothering to answer previous objections, each of which would require considerable time and information to refute, a technique which has been referred to as the "Gish Gallop." The "Gish Gallop"! Why I do believe I have encountered it here.

"Gish has, for example, declared that the reptile-bird transition Archaeopteryx was not a transition because it had feathers and flew and was, therefore, a bird." Trott noted "to make the absurd assertion that Archaeopteryx did not show features of a reptile, Gish must conceal from his audience facts about Archaeopteryx such as that it possessed a pubic peduncle and a long bony tail. These are features found in reptiles that are never found in birds."

In 2004, Gish appeared on Penn and Teller's Showtime television show Bullshit! on the episode "Creationism." On the show Gish explained that "neither creation nor evolution are scientific theories. Evolution is no more scientific than creation." The scientific proof Gish offered for creationism was that the Grand Canyon was created in one day during the Biblical flood that involved Noah's Ark. As for Gish's claim that there are no fossils to demonstrate evolution, Dr Eugenie Scott of the National Center for Science Education noted "part of the problem is Dr. Gish hasn't kept up with the scientific literature." The host, Penn Jillette, concluded that "Duane doesn't want to find anything that will shake up his world view" and "his God lives only in the margins of science and he wants to keep those margins wide."

In 2002 Massimo Pigliucci, who debated Gish five times, noted Gish ignores evidence that is contrary to Gish's religious beliefs.[10] Moreover, Pigliucci criticized the organizations Gish runs, the personal attacks Gish makes, the pseudoscience Gish teaches, and even Gish's claim that Adam in Genesis 1 had a belly button.

You are much more comfortable regurgitating someone else's arguments than actually creating your own, aren't you? yes yes it's truly irritating, trying to discuss soemthing with someone who selectively responds only to those points which someone has provided them with something posing as an argument.

Heh. Ask an honest question from a devout believer, and what do you get? you get evasion. i suppose that is understandable, when someone is shown an obvious discrepancy in their belief system. it doesn't show much integrity though, or any commitment to the truth. oh well.

if you find it fascinating, then please respond to my questions regarding free will! Don't want to go find it, what was it? ok here it is, restated for you in a different way:

does god know how you will respond to this question?

I'm still trying to figure out how an all-knowing god wouldn't have known that adam and eve would have chosen the path they did. Seahawks, i'm sure there must be something in the bible that addresses this inconsistency?

oh no now you did it. it has been shown that reason does not work with the unreasonable.

But you said god knows everything, so god must have known that man would "go his own way", right?

god know you're lazy. not very flattering.

if you find it fascinating, then please respond to my questions regarding free will!

Jeez, did god know you were going to say this? Yes God knew he was going to say this because God is all knowing and knows Seahawks words before they come out. but seahawks believes in free will, and if god knew he was going to say that, then the idea of free will is patently false.

Right on. how can one agree with this sentiment when the idea of "religion" hasn't even been defined? If one implies "religion" is a set of beliefs one must adopt under the implicit threat of damnation and other forms of violence, then yes indeed, that religion fellates said green donkey dicks.

Jeez, did god know you were going to say this?

if god "knows what decision you will make before you make them", this certainly implies that your future is already going to turn out in only one way, the way that god knows it will turn out. perhaps He (is god masculine?) only knows what you will decide 20 minutes in advance, or are you implying he knows a complete lifetime, or even Multiple lifetimes in advance? (Did you know reincarnation was taught in the christian religion at one time? a standard doctrine, actually.) but according to you, god already knows whether or not we will "wake up".

yes, but what if the contradictions are entirely inconsistent within any moral, ethical, legal, etc. framework? do you think "anything goes"?