nav[aria-label="Primary Navigation"] { padding: 0; & ul { list-style: none; width: 100%; display: flex; flex-direction: row; justify-content: start; align-items: start; gap: 30px; padding: 0; & li { margin: 0; } & ul li { list-style: none; } } }

Child Item

Atheism/Existence of God Debates (Please Read OP)

PDN

This new 'catch-all' thread will operate similar to the Creationism and Protestant/Catholic Debate threads.

Too many threads are spoilt and dragged off topic when a non-Christian poster demands, "What evidence do you have for God?" While some may enjoy such discussion, it is frequently off-topic and derails discussion of other subjects (the very discussion that is the reason for this Forum's existence).

So, in order to protect the Forum and facilitate on topic discussions, all that stuff now belongs here. Anyone who keeps trying to derail other discussions by demanding evidence for God's existence will be warned, and if those warnings are ignored then swift infractions and bans will ensue.

Find more posts tagged with

Quick Links

Comments

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Why is it logically absurd for an omnipotent being to say, "From henceforth I choose to do x and not to do y"?

I never said it was.

PDN wrote: »

Again, don't just assert it. Show us why it is a logical absurdity.

Why is it logically absurd for an omnipotent being to choose to create something that is random or which possesses free will?

Surely it would be logically absurd for an omnipotent being to be unable to create randomness or free will?

Because he, limitless being, would have imposed a limit on himself, is this not absurd? Is it less likely, I ask you, that you need the properties to support your world-view? I would contend it is. We know certain things about the human condition and you're bending things to a belief that shouldn't survive contradictory evidence.

PDN wrote: »

So why is it a logical absurdity for an Eternal being not to be bound by our concepts of past, present and future?

I never said he was bound by those things, I'm doesn't matter, he's not bound at all! That's the point I'm trying to make. You can't have both ways.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

Then don't just assert it. Show us why it is a logical absurdity.

Why is it logically absurd for an omnipotent being to say, "From henceforth I choose to do x and not to do y"?

I've no trouble grasping eternity. You've hijacked it though and turned it into a logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

Again, don't just assert it. Show us why it is a logical absurdity.

Why is it logically absurd for an omnipotent being to choose to create something that is random or which possesses free will?

Surely it would be logically absurd for an omnipotent being to be unable to create randomness or free will?

I've no trouble grasping eternity. You've hijacked it though and turned it into a logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

So why is it a logical absurdity for an Eternal being not to be bound by our concepts of past, present and future?

Morbert

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I fail to see how that is logically possible. It may be Christianly possible but that doesn't count.

If something is logically impossible, it means there is some contradiction in the logic. What is the contradiction in believing an omnipotent god knows of our actions, and has allowed us to determine those actions?

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

So you say but where is you proof?

psycjay

PDN wrote: »

Who said He has no limits? The Christian position is that God limits Himself. Therefore He cannot sin, nor can He lie.

If one has the capacity to limit themselves then they have the capacity to unlimit themselves and are therefore limitless. You are saying god cannot do wrong because he doesn't let himself. If that's case it's a question of will not ability.

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I'm told by Christians to suppose that Christianity is logical. It fails that test from a number of directions.

So you keep saying but you fail to recapulate these arguments.
You provide to long lists of thenm but don't say which on these lists you agree with so I have to assume you agree with all of them.

the few you do rehearse are not shown to be true e.g. the "Omnipotent/omniscient God means there can't be free will" one and the "Cant have random events if God exists" one

http://www.gradesaver.com/the-consolation-of-philosophy/study-guide/section5/

Philosophy answers that any chance event that occurs had its own set of hidden causes, whether or not they are perceived by human beings. Whether or not these causes appear to have relation to each other, they are nevertheless governed by Providence.

Boethius then asks how can there be free will in this close-knit chain of events. To this Philosophy asserts that there must indeed be free will, because no rational nature could exist without it.
...
The idea of foreknowledge and Providence have been debated for centuries. This argument was even referred to in Chaucer's Canterbury Tales. There is no reason to believe that this debate will cease anytime soon.

What is at issue is a central philosophical question of whether or not the world is predetermined or subject to chance.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Who said He has no limits? The Christian position is that God limits Himself. Therefore He cannot sin, nor can He lie.

Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. You keep making this logical error. Omnipotence does not necessitate having control over everything. So an omnipotent God could force everything to be done exactly as He chooses - or He could create something that is genuinely random, or that possesses genuine free will.

Which is an logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

PDN wrote: »

Also, you keep falling into the error of talking about God as if he is limited by our perspective of time. The word 'predict' is meaningless when applied to God, because to 'predict' necessitates there being a future. But for an Eternal being there would be no past or future. Everything would be present.

The fact that you struggle to comprehend Eternity, or that you keep falling into the same errors, does not have any bearing on whether Christianity is logical.

I've no trouble grasping eternity. You've hijacked it though and turned it into a logical absurdity to facilitate Christianity.

ISAW

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I have already here,

In that post you dont actually state your position . the best you do is say christianity is illogical. You provide links to other siutes but you dint state what you believe those sites are saying i.e. you do not state how they show Christianity to be illogical.

How do they? what do you say they are claiming?

Put it this way suppose i said your arguments are all wrong and here is a reference which if you read you wil see how wrong you are since it has the disproof of all the arguments
against Christianity you are making:
http://www.bible.com/

here,

Same as above. You don't state any claim. all you do is post a link to a long article on
"arguments for the nonexistence of God"
You don't show if any of these arguments are true or how they show Christianity to be illogical or unreasonable.

also, since you refer to such you are the same as a Biblical fundamentalist in that you are claiming in advance that everything form that source is correct.

It is therefore only necessary to show any single error to disprove the claims made.

Ill take premise 3 from the first argument made which suggests a perfect god can only make perfect creations or a perfect god has no need for creating anything and therefore won't. How do you know these premises to be true? You don't know the mind of God.
They are assumed and therefore not proven true.
If you can't show they are true for a fact then the premise the argument and the whole reference falls.

claims

Human behaviour is reducible to quarks.

that is a belief you have which is not proven.

here, here

says:

Essentially I think it's a fallacy to attribute omniscience and omnipotence to a being and then say we're responsible for anything which Christianity certainly does. It's a paradox to me.

the "omniscient/omnipotent God can not allow free will" argument is not a paradox.

Just because God knows the future does not necessarily remove your free will.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will

etc.

What "etc."?

Just to make my argument more clear please check all the links as well.

Fine.
Please read all of the Bible and all Christian writings on theology since the first century and you will be clear on the replies.

Also are you not reading my posts because of my claims because that would save me a lot of time?

You posts contain unworded claims. When you make claims like the ominsicent impotent vs . free will one you don't supply a reference and when you supply references you don't add the specific claim you claim that reference is making in your own words.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

I fail to see how that is logically possible. It may be Christianly possible but that doesn't count.

Oh dear, I thought it would take several days before we reached this point of just summarily dismissing Christianity as illogical rather than demonstrating how or why.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Then give us some logic to back up your position. Not bald assertions, not arguments that depend on an a priori denial of the existence of free will or of God. Some kind of rationale to support your position.

I have numerous times. There just seems to be a reluctance to accept logic.

CerebralCortex

Morbert wrote: »

To say someone does not have free will is to say their decisions are not determined by themselves. If our decisions are determined by the laws of physics, there is no free will. If our decisions are determined by an omnipotent, omniscient god, then we have no free will. Christians aren't claiming either.

With you.

Morbert wrote: »

They are claiming an omnipotent God created us, but let us determine our actions.

God, being omniscient, knows what those actions are, but the actions were still determined by us.

I fail to see how that is logically possible. It may be Christianly possible but that doesn't count.

PDN

CerebralCortex wrote: »

So what? That changes nothing. It's seems like you are making the mistake of limiting that which you say has not limits.

Who said He has no limits? The Christian position is that God limits Himself. Therefore He cannot sin, nor can He lie.

But you are also saying that he has created(he didn't really if it's random) something he can't predict has no control over, namely randomness, thus you are denying his omnipotence and omniscience. Showing that the god hypothesis is absurd.

Not at all. You keep making this logical error. Omnipotence does not necessitate having control over everything. So an omnipotent God could force everything to be done exactly as He chooses - or He could create something that is genuinely random, or that possesses genuine free will.

Also, you keep falling into the error of talking about God as if he is limited by our perspective of time. The word 'predict' is meaningless when applied to God, because to 'predict' necessitates there being a future. But for an Eternal being there would be no past or future. Everything would be present.

Well I'm just supposing omniscience and omnipotence amongst other qualities as I'm told by the religious but primarily I'm told by Christians to suppose that Christianity is logical. It fails that test from a number of directions. Or should I suppose that logic has nothing to do with it.

The fact that you struggle to comprehend Eternity, or that you keep falling into the same errors, does not have any bearing on whether Christianity is logical.

This is getting tiring.

Then give us some logic to back up your position. Not bald assertions, not arguments that depend on an a priori denial of the existence of free will or of God. Some kind of rationale to support your position.

Morbert

CerebralCortex wrote: »

You've lost me?

To say someone does not have free will is to say their decisions are not determined by themselves. If our decisions are determined by the laws of physics, there is no free will. If our decisions are determined by an omnipotent, omniscient god, then we have no free will. Christians aren't claiming either. They are claiming an omnipotent God created us, but let us determine our actions. God, being omniscient, knows what those actions are, but the actions were still determined by us.

Morbert

pts wrote: »

I would argue that if we make decisions there must be a way those decisions are arrived at. It isn't important if that processes is a brain or transcendent soul. If god created how we make decisions (again regardless of what this process is or what plane it exists on) then god understands it. If he created it and he understands it then we can't make decisions he did not hard code us to make.

I'm not sure if you are arguing that we don't have a decision making process, that there isn't a decision making process or that god doesn't understand it.

I, personally, am a reductionist in this case. I believe the way we make decisions can indeed be reduced to the laws of physics. But Christianity posits a supernatural soul that cannot be reduced to simpler components. There is no algorithm churning input into output. The way decisions are arrived at is simply the self-arbitration of the individual.

Wicknight wrote:

Yes, that is why free will doesn't exist. There is no choice, no undetermined future. The film reel/Einstein loaf that is our universe is as eternal as God is. It has always just been as it is. Not the start or the end, they can be finite just as a film can start and end 2 hours later. But the film reel itself is fixed.

For free will to to exist their must be something that is undetermined and the outcome dependent on the choice the person makes.

If God exists nothing is undetermined, nothing is dependent on the actions of the actors in the universe, any more than a film reel can chance depending on what happens in the frame before it.

It is precisely God's eternal nature that makes this the case. Everything just is, and has always just been as it is. The film reel that is our universe has always, eternally, been the film reel that is our universe. It has never not been so, and thus has never been undetermined. Without the ability to be undetermined, to be contingent on something else, you cannot have choice.

It is not determinism per se that is in question, but instead, who is doing the determining. We all agree that the reel has some form of atemporal existence. But the question is whether or not the reel prescribes the characters' actions, or merely reflects their actions. Christians would claim the latter. This is consistent if the characters have some facet of existence that transcends the chemicals and laws that the reel is made of: if they are more than just images formed by chemicals and laws.

psycjay

I am going to ask a simple question:

What does having free will or not have to do with belief (or lack of belief) in god?

We do not currently know whether we have "free will" or whether we just have the illusion of free will. Take the split brain experiment where a stimulus is presented with the word "laugh" to the non language hemisphere. The person proceeds to laugh. But when asked for an explanation (this information going to the language hemisphere) the person makes up a reason such as "you guys are really funny".

The individual genuinely believed that they had a reason for their behaviour, but their brains were just guessing, to make sense of the world, that is what brains do.

So perhaps we do not have free will but we develop hypothesis for our behaviour after it has occurred. This generation could be a sort of evolution of thoughts, where the "strongest" thought dominates over weaker ones.

The selection of ideas in the brain does not require either a homunculus or God. Just as evolution does not require (and makes much more logical sense) without the requirement of a God.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

But, once again, you are making the mistake of referring to an Eternal being as if he were subject to our perspective of time. There is no 'before' to God.

Yes, that is why free will doesn't exist. There is no choice, no undetermined future. The film reel/Einstein loaf that is our universe is as eternal as God is. It has always just been as it is. Not the start or the end, they can be finite just as a film can start and end 2 hours later. But the film reel itself is fixed.

For free will to to exist their must be something that is undetermined and the outcome dependent on the choice the person makes.

If God exists nothing is undetermined, nothing is dependent on the actions of the actors in the universe, any more than a film reel can chance depending on what happens in the frame before it.

It is precisely God's eternal nature that makes this the case. Everything just is, and has always just been as it is. The film reel that is our universe has always, eternally, been the film reel that is our universe. It has never not been so, and thus has never been undetermined. Without the ability to be undetermined, to be contingent on something else, you cannot have choice.

PDN wrote: »

For God, being omniscient, does not see frame 55 after (or before) He sees frame 23. He sees them all at the same time - in Eternity.

Yes, that was my point. The film cannot change. It has always just been that film, that set of sequences in that order. For eternity.

CerebralCortex

This is getting tiring.

CerebralCortex

Morbert wrote: »

Remember that we have supposed a will that is supernatural, and transcends physical law in some form or other. We aren't just a system of response caused by stimuli, but instead beings capable of self-arbitration.

Well I'm just supposing omniscience and omnipotence amongst other qualities as I'm told by the religious but primarily I'm told by Christians to suppose that Christianity is logical. It fails that test from a number of directions. Or should I suppose that logic has nothing to do with it.

Morbert wrote: »

He presumably chooses to allow us to act out of his control.

But logically speaking how would he not know what consequences there are if he is omniscient?

Morbert wrote: »

This is why it is important to suppose a supernatural, transcendent will that isn't just a mechanisation that takes stimuli as input, and produces responses as output. Such processes can be designed to produce different responses. Their responses, in other words, are determined by the designer. A free will, on the other hand, is self-determined, producing actions not determined by any designer.

I.e. God does not understand the mechanism because there is no mechanism to understand.

You've lost me?

pts

Morbert wrote: »

This is why it is important to suppose a supernatural, transcendent will that isn't just a mechanisation that takes stimuli as input, and produces responses as output. Such processes can be designed to produce different responses. Their responses, in other words, are determined by the designer. A free will, on the other hand, is self-determined, producing actions not determined by any designer.

I.e. God does not understand the mechanism because there is no mechanism to understand.

I would argue that if we make decisions there must be a way those decisions are arrived at. It isn't important if that processes is a brain or transcendent soul. If god created how we make decisions (again regardless of what this process is or what plane it exists on) then god understands it. If he created it and he understands it then we can't make decisions he did not hard code us to make.

I'm not sure if you are arguing that we don't have a decision making process, that there isn't a decision making process or that god doesn't understand it.

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. Your very choice of the word 'mechanism' is deterministic. What if God created us with an ability to make genuinely free decisions. What if, as some researchers in quantum mechanics think, there is genuine randomness in the universe?

Now, if you are saying that it is impossible for God to create a being with genuine free will, or to make something genuinely random, then you are denying His omnipotence. If you are denying His omnipotence, then you are denying the existence of God to start off with.

Which means that your logic is now as follows:

x is incompatible with y. Why? Because I'm beginning with the premises than neither x nor y exist in the first place. (where x refers to free will and y refers to the Christian concept of God as omnipotent and omniscient)

If it were possible for a circle to become more circular, then that would be true of your argument here.

If god knows everything, even the result of a random process then how can he logically create something which he does not know how it is going to act?

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

Not at all. Your very choice of the word 'mechanism' is deterministic. What if God created us with an ability to make genuinely free decisions. What if, as some researchers in quantum mechanics think, there is genuine randomness in the universe?

Now, if you are saying that it is impossible for God to create a being with genuine free will, or to make something genuinely random, then you are denying His omnipotence. If you are denying His omnipotence, then you are denying the existence of God to start off with.

But you are also saying that he has created(he didn't really if it's random) something he can't predict has no control over, namely randomness, thus you are denying his omnipotence and omniscience. Showing that the god hypothesis is absurd.

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

But, once again, you are making the mistake of referring to an Eternal being as if he were subject to our perspective of time. There is no 'before' to God.

For God, being omniscient, does not see frame 55 after (or before) He sees frame 23. He sees them all at the same time - in Eternity.

So what? That changes nothing. It's seems like you are making the mistake of limiting that which you say has not limits.

PDN

pts wrote: »

Again the way decisions are modelled are not important. If we assume that god understand how we make decisions and that god did create our decision making mechanism then his choice of how that mechanism works decides our future.

Not at all. Your very choice of the word 'mechanism' is deterministic. What if God created us with an ability to make genuinely free decisions. What if, as some researchers in quantum mechanics think, there is genuine randomness in the universe?

Now, if you are saying that it is impossible for God to create a being with genuine free will, or to make something genuinely random, then you are denying His omnipotence. If you are denying His omnipotence, then you are denying the existence of God to start off with.

Which means that your logic is now as follows:

x is incompatible with y. Why? Because I'm beginning with the premises than neither x nor y exist in the first place. (where x refers to free will and y refers to the Christian concept of God as omnipotent and omniscient)

If it were possible for a circle to become more circular, then that would be true of your argument here.

Morbert

CerebralCortex wrote:

Because we are contained within the causal chain. We are in a system created by a god who is claimed to be both omnipotent(can do everything) and omniscient(knows everything), correct me if I'm wrong, by Christians.
Am I wrong?

Remember that we have supposed a will that is supernatural, and transcends physical law in some form or other. We aren't just a system of response caused by stimuli, but instead beings capable of self-arbitration.

I'm saying ultimately he decided what we do/did/will or else he loses omnipotence and omniscience. He created the snake He either knows what the snake was going to do or He's not omniscient and if the snake acts out of His control then He's not omnipotent. Tense aware or not to be omniscient unless I'm mistaken He'd have to know the actions that will/do/did take place, he set them in motion ultimately as we are told over and over again by the ultimate cause argument.

He presumably chooses to allow us to act out of his control.

pts wrote: »

I'm delighted we're revisiting this subject as I felt we didn't reach closure last time.

This problem becomes interesting if we model our choices as a decision making mechanism which takes inputs and produces a decision (it doesn't matter if the mechanism is our brain, our soul etc.)

God designed that mechanism and he knows all the inputs the mechanism will receive. His choice of how the inputs map to a decision effectively sets
us on a path we can not deviate from.

God can not create a mechanism which he does not understand and still be Omniscience. If he understands how his choice of mapping will effect us he effectively chooses our path in life leaving us without free will.

This is why it is important to suppose a supernatural, transcendent will that isn't just a mechanisation that takes stimuli as input, and produces responses as output. Such processes can be designed to produce different responses. Their responses, in other words, are determined by the designer. A free will, on the other hand, is self-determined, producing actions not determined by any designer.

I.e. God does not understand the mechanism because there is no mechanism to understand.

PDN

Wicknight wrote: »

If the consequence comes before the choice then the consequence cannot be determined by the choice.

A film reel makes no different if you play it forward or backwards, the relationships between the frames are fixed. Frame 55 is not dictated by frame 23 being played first. You could play it in reverse, get to frame 55 then 54 53 52...23 and it would be fine.

But, once again, you are making the mistake of referring to an Eternal being as if he were subject to our perspective of time. There is no 'before' to God.

For God, being omniscient, does not see frame 55 after (or before) He sees frame 23. He sees them all at the same time - in Eternity.

Zombrex

The film reel is the best analogy for this.

If God exists then the universe is a film reel, with every point in space time being known and fixed.

The question becomes ok well why is it this film reel rather than any other film reel.

The theistic answer seems to be this is determined by our actions, our choices. We decide that we cheat on our wife or we give money to charity and the next frame represents that outcome.

But think about it. How do we do that? The film reel is set. It has always been set. It has eternally been set. It has always existed as it is, for ever eternally. It just is.

CerebralCortex

antiskeptic wrote: »

What if we don't model our choices that way. What if we model our choices as the product of a freewill? Where freewill is defined as non-deterministic.

You have to accept that human action is reducible to neuronal/cellular/molecular/quantum interactions this is demonstrable. So we know we don't model our choices we interact with world and learn.

Zombrex

PDN wrote: »

Yes, our future - but not God's future, since future does not exist for Him.

Yes. God's eternal nature collapses our future to just a single time line. There is no undetermined future that may or may not arise depending on your choices. There is only the future, the past, the present, and these become just points in the Einstein loaf. The entire loaf exists as a single entity.

The alternative would require God to exist in an undetermined state, which is against the definition. God isn't observing that you might cheat on your wife or you might not depending on the choice you will make when it gets to that time. He isn't think When he decides I will feel something about that.

PDN wrote: »

If I watched a video of your life, then each choice you made in the video would be a free will choice which, until that moment, was undetermined.

God watches the video of your life too, but He sees it from an eternal standpoint. He watches you make your free choices.

Yes but for the video to exist it is necessary that at some point it was made, ie the next frame was undetermined until what happened in the present.

This never happens in this thought experiment with God. The film reel just exists, in its entirety and God knows it and has already known it.

It leads to an information paradox, a bit like the one where you go into the future find out you wrote a best selling novel, take it back to the past and copy it (the paradox being where does the novel actually come from).

In our fixed Einstein loaf all you have is the film reel. It was never recorded (ie our choices never determined what the future would be, ie what the next film frame would contain)

The question becomes ok where do the consequences of our choices come from, where does the future come from. Why is it this future rather than any other future. What determined it would be this future rather than another give that it was always had has always for eternity been this future.

Remember the present it not determining the future. The present is simply a point in the already fully formed loaf. It moves through the loaf but does not change it.

PDN wrote: »

Actually I recommend you read Greene's book (or reread it if you've forgotten some of his points), because he has some very interesting things to say about that!

I've read it, thanks.

PDN wrote: »

Yes, if someone plays your life-video backwards then it will indeed operate the same way but in reverse, because it is still dictated by the choices you freely made.

If the consequence comes before the choice then the consequence cannot be determined by the choice.

A film reel makes no different if you play it forward or backwards, the relationships between the frames are fixed. Frame 55 is not dictated by frame 23 being played first. You could play it in reverse, get to frame 55 then 54 53 52...23 and it would be fine.

pts

antiskeptic wrote: »

What if we don't model our choices that way. What if we model our choices as the product of a freewill? Where freewill is defined as non-deterministic.

Unless you are saying that god does not understand how we make decisions or that god did not create our decision making mechanism then the way we model the mechanism is unimportant.

EDIT: I might as well address PDNs point here too.

PDN wrote: »

Ah, but now you're arguing that all our choices are determined by inputs. In that case you are not arguing that there's a paradox between omniscience and freewill, but rather that there is no such thing as free will.

Again the way decisions are modelled are not important. If we assume that god understand how we make decisions and that god did create our decision making mechanism then his choice of how that mechanism works decides our future.

PDN wrote: »

So your logic, it appears, is as follows.

x is incompatible with y. Why? Well because I don't believe in x to begin with.

Do you understand why some of us will find that line of logic less than convincing?

If your choices are determined by the inputs, then they are not really choices at all. Nobody has any free will, irrespective of whether an omniscient God exists or not.

In that case, it's a bit of a waste time debating since you don't have the freedom to change your mind anyway. We're all just meat puppets going through our pre-programmed routines.

Wow! Now I'm depressed!

Sorry about that

PDN

pts wrote: »

I'm delighted we're revisiting this subject as I felt we didn't reach closure last time.

This problem becomes interesting if we model our choices as a decision making mechanism which takes inputs and produces a decision (it doesn't matter if the mechanism is our brain, our soul etc.)

God designed that mechanism and he knows all the inputs the mechanism will receive. His choice of how the inputs map to a decision effectively sets
us on a path we can not deviate from.

God can not create a mechanism which he does not understand and still be Omniscience. If he understands how his choice of mapping will effect us he effectively chooses our path in life leaving us without free will.

Ah, but now you're arguing that all our choices are determined by inputs. In that case you are not arguing that there's a paradox between omniscience and freewill, but rather that there is no such thing as free will.

So your logic, it appears, is as follows.

x is incompatible with y. Why? Well because I don't believe in x to begin with.

Do you understand why some of us will find that line of logic less than convincing?

If your choices are determined by the inputs, then they are not really choices at all. Nobody has any free will, irrespective of whether an omniscient God exists or not.

In that case, it's a bit of a waste time debating since you don't have the freedom to change your mind anyway. We're all just meat puppets going through our pre-programmed routines.

Wow! Now I'm depressed!

CerebralCortex

PDN wrote: »

You just made a bit of a logical slip there. Omnipotence means that God can do anything, not that He does everything that He can.

Yes it does and let's not forget he has infinite knowledge.

PDN wrote: »

So, He can control the snake, but if He decides to give the snake a bit of freedom to do whatever the snake feels like then that is in no way a denial of His omnipotence.

Unless you're arguing that an omnipotent being can't give free will to one of his creatures (in which case He wouldn't be omnipotent, would He?)

No logical slip. If there is something that happens that God didn't do then it implies that something else did it against His will therefore not omnipotent or omniscient.