Omniscience

I believe you are demanding a meaningless symmetry here, The result is merely a semantical exercise.

I certainly don't deny the existence or (limited) predictive ability of Science. Moreover, I don't assert the existence of any predictive ability on the part of religion, Christian or otherwise. Further, I don't even assert an ability to prove the existence of "a Christian God" as you term it.

- Show me any rational proof of the existence of a Christian god.

- Show me any rational proof of the predictive ability of Christianity.

I'll fill in the blanks on the side of science:

- I show you the rational proof of the existence of science: The demonstrable, repeatable scientific principles of electromagnetism that allow the design, construction, and implementation of ignition coils for gasoline engines.

- I show you the rational proof of the predictive ability of science: F = MA.

We have been over this before. I believe there are fewer leaps of faith required for the belief in a creator than are required for belief in the ability of science to one day unlock the mystery and origin of our existence (and that of the material world).

- I show you the rational proof of the existence of science: The demonstrable, repeatable scientific principles of electromagnetism that allow the design, construction, and implementation of ignition coils for gasoline engines.

- I show you the rational proof of the predictive ability of science: F = MA.

I wouldn't force these beliefs on anyone else, and I wouldn't silently accept anyone's attempt to force something else on me.

Well then, since Neo has failed to make the case that the Bible explicitly and unequivocally and scripturally advises that "God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively", and has failed to make the case that it does not need to be explicit given the fact that there are many items of lesser importance with explicit references, I challenge you to show why the word of god leaves such an apparently pivotal idealization to speculative theological rumination, when there are so many items of lesser importance with explicit references.

So which is more important in terms of Christianity:

a) Don't get drunk?
b) God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively?

Just joshin' ya Chumly.

I think you are confusing my position with Neo's. If you are unsatisfied with Neo's responses to you, I cannot help you.

In with a roar, out with a whimper.

neologist wrote:

Just joshin' ya Chumly.

real life wrote:

I think you are confusing my position with Neo's. If you are unsatisfied with Neo's responses to you, I cannot help you.

real life wrote:

You are free to choose your own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark.

And how do you know I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark"?
What argument do you put forward that I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark"? Simply your personal belief I have free will? That's not worth the phosphors it's illumined with unless you can rationally substantiate it.

Go ahead, stake your claim that I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark". I have not had lunch yet and things are not going well today so you get this. You were prolly being funny.

Thus the lack of food, and things not going well (in whole or in part) determined my response.

neologist wrote:

To demonstrate the concept of God given free will, it is necessary only to show that God offers choice. Whether you believe the bible is God's word or not, that it says as much should be evident.

Well said.

Well then, since Neo has failed to make the case that the Bible explicitly and unequivocally and scripturally advises that "God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively", and has failed to make the case that it does not need to be explicit given the fact that there are many items of lesser importance with explicit references, I challenge you to show why the word of god leaves such an apparently pivotal idealization to speculative theological rumination, when there are so many items of lesser importance with explicit references.

So which is more important in terms of Christianity:

a) Don't get drunk?
b) God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively?

Pizza man, I'll have an extra large! And no I have not lumped you together, I can identify the cheese from the tomatoes!

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

You are free to choose your own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark.

And how do you know I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark"?
What argument do you put forward that I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark"? Simply your personal belief I have free will? That's not worth the phosphors it's illumined with unless you can rationally substantiate it.

Go ahead, stake your claim that I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark". I have not had lunch yet and things are not going well today so you get this. You were prolly being funny.

Thus the lack of food, and things not going well (in whole or in part) determined my response.

real life wrote:

neologist wrote:

To demonstrate the concept of God given free will, it is necessary only to show that God offers choice. Whether you believe the bible is God's word or not, that it says as much should be evident.

Well said.

Chumly wrote:

Well then, since Neo has failed to make the case that the Bible explicitly and unequivocally and scripturally advises that "God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively", and has failed to make the case that it does not need to be explicit given the fact that there are many items of lesser importance with explicit references, I challenge you to show why the word of god leaves such an apparently pivotal idealization to speculative theological rumination, when there are so many items of lesser importance with explicit references.

So which is more important in terms of Christianity:

a) Don't get drunk?
b) God has the power of foreknowledge and the ability to use it selectively?

There are two parts.

The first is my challenge to you as per your claim "You are free to choose your own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark" of which you have not responded and I await with the utmost fervor.

The second is an invitation you can take or no, as you see fit, irrelative of whether you have or have not averred selective foreknowledge. Unless god is going to smote you down?

Neo's answer to you regarding the free will of man, which I agreed with, is more than sufficient for you to respond to, if you can.

real life wrote:

You are free to choose your own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark.

And how do you know I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark"? What argument do you put forward that I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark"? Simply your personal belief I have free will? That's not worth the phosphors it's illumined with unless you can rationally substantiate it.

Go ahead, stake your claim that I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark".

Don't know which 'god' you are referring to. I only know of one God.

And why would I defend a position which I have already told you is not mine?

real life wrote:

Neo's answer to you regarding the free will of man, which I agreed with, is more than sufficient for you to respond to, if you can.

OK then, you're clearly unable to meet my challenge as per:

Chumly wrote:

real life wrote:

You are free to choose your own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark.

And how do you know I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark"? What argument do you put forward that I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark"? Simply your personal belief I have free will? That's not worth the phosphors it's illumined with unless you can rationally substantiate it.

Go ahead, stake your claim that I am "free to choose (my) own interpretation of his 'Freewill is fantasy' remark".

real life wrote:

Don't know which 'god' you are referring to. I only know of one God.

If you only know of one god then you may answer in that context.

real life wrote:

And why would I defend a position which I have already told you is not mine?

Because god works in mysterious ways, right? Shirley Neo's views must be from the word of god, the same god as your god, right? Or are there two gods, one for each of you?

If you only know of one god then you may answer in that context.

OK then, you're clearly unable to meet my challenges, and all you have done is rather visibly sidestepped my invitations. At least tell me a religious joke if you are unable to be congruent with your arguments.