Atheists, smarter than religious people

Since he is the final arbiter of what is moral, your objection makes no sense. He has the power to overcome or overthrow any efforts to defeat his purpose.

If as you say he is the arbiter then he must know all in order to arbitrate you're claiming he does not. You would be a lot farther ahead to say you simply do not know how he does the impossible then to trip over yourself.

By your logic you might as well ask, "if god is all-powerful can god create a rock so big that even he cannot lift it"? It's equally absurd!

"Reason?" Geesh, I see it as abandoning logic and common sense.

Pray to a god that doesn't exist.
Pray, even though its been proven by research that it doesn't work for third parties.
Pray to a god that happens to be one of the last one invented by man.
Pray in a beautiful edifice called a church with like-minded "believers."
Believe in a book called the bible that is full of (mistakes)/errors and omissions.
Believe in a god that shows more prone to revenge and destruction than love.
Who the hell created god? Does something come from nothing? Since when?

I will believe what I can believe in by what I learn through education/reading/science and common sense. If somebody tells me they have a bridge they have to sell on the moon on the cheap, I'll have to see it first through irrefutable evidence. We're not even talking about something I'd base my life beliefs on in which to live my life. .

Chumly wrote:

If as you say he is the arbiter then he must know all in order to arbitrate you're claiming he does not. You would be a lot farther ahead to say you simply do not know how he does the impossible then to trip over yourself.

By your logic you might as well ask, "if god is all-powerful can god create a rock so big that even he cannot lift it"? It's equally absurd!

OK, I do not know how he can be 'he who causes to become'. But as far as omniscience/foreknowledge is concerned, it is only the outworking of our individual moral choices that I claim he must keep from himself. Were I to believe otherwise, I could not say I have free will. Nor could I be found guilty of sin.

neologist wrote:

Chumly wrote:

If as you say he is the arbiter then he must know all in order to arbitrate you're claiming he does not. You would be a lot farther ahead to say you simply do not know how he does the impossible then to trip over yourself.

By your logic you might as well ask, "if god is all-powerful can god create a rock so big that even he cannot lift it"? It's equally absurd!

OK, I do not know how he can be 'he who causes to become'. But as far as omniscience/foreknowledge is concerned, it is only the outworking of our individual moral choices that I claim he must keep from himself. Were I to believe otherwise, I could not say I have free will. Nor could I be found guilty of sin.

But and yet:

You have not answered how your god can be sure that the best Christian moral conditions (his goal!) are in place if he has to keep knowledge from himself.

If you are going to claim "He has the power to overcome or overthrow any efforts to defeat his purpose" by bother with the unsubstantiated argument of "screening"? Why not believe the just-as-absurd but much simpler notion that if your god is perfect, and he can do anything and everything, he would not need to screen himself, because he could know and not know both at the same time.

Sort'a like the ultimate idiot savant!

Hi neo, If I'm wrong, please show us which statement I made is wrong and why? Thank you.

Pray to a god that doesn't exist.
Pray, even though its been proven by research that it doesn't work for third parties.
Pray to a god that happens to be one of the last one invented by man.
Pray in a beautiful edifice called a church with like-minded "believers."
Believe in a book called the bible that is full of (mistakes)/errors and omissions.
Believe in a god that shows more prone to revenge and destruction than love.
Who the hell created god? Does something come from nothing? Since when?

What do you mean by the best Christian moral conditions. .. ?

I personally think that we have a limited amount of free will. But then I do not believe in an omniscient or omnipotent God. If I did, I could not logically believe in free will.

I cannot imagine why a perfect and omni-everything god could or would screen himself from knowing the consequences of his actions in creating such imperfect beings as we are. That is a convenient dodge of someone who believes in a logically impossible God.

snood wrote:

This particular piece about the difference between preordination and foreknowledge seems perfectly clear and logical to me.

In the same way that the difference between Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy must thus seems perfectly clear and logical to you.

neologist wrote:

What do you mean by the best Christian moral conditions. .. ?

I'll take it as humour that you would expect me, to tell you, what your god's "best Christian moral conditions" should be, thus in answering the question: what is the purpose of your Christian god?, you will have answered your question to me.

2) Since you said "He has the power to overcome or overthrow any efforts to defeat his purpose" how about telling me his purpose? Would it be to enable the best Christian moral conditions?

3) Do you deny that your god has only has one course of action, that being to enable the best Christian moral conditions?

4) Are you going to claim that your god can take other courses of action that are not condusive to the best Christian moral conditions?

5) How can your god can be sure that the best Christian moral conditions (his goal!) are in place if he has to keep knowledge from himself?

6) If you are going to claim "He has the power to overcome or overthrow any efforts to defeat his purpose" why bother with the unsubstantiated argument of "screening"? Why not believe the just-as-absurd but much simpler notion that if your god is perfect, and he can do anything and everything, he would not need to screen himself, because he could know and not know both at the same time?

Now how about answering my questions to you.

With that God blessed them, saying: "Be fruitful and become many and fill the waters in the sea basins, and let the flying creatures become many in the earth."

Still - two distinct and separate concepts.

RL, what about?

God is alleged to be omnipresent (immanent in everything; there is nothing apart from Him; that's why He is absolute, nothing relative to Him).

God has given his creation, man, free will, meaning man is separate from God and can choose contrary to God's wishes, placing limitations on both God's presenece and His power--even if it is because God gave up some of His power to create man and His freedom..

It might follow, therefore, that God's ominicience and omnipresence are separate properties. As man conceives of God, He is inherently contradictory.

(I do not take the above seriously. All theology is intellectual fantasy)