God is either evil, not god, not the creator, or nonexistent

[Woodruff]

Also, as I've explained before, free will can not exist with an omnipotent omniscient creator.

Assuming that logic is not flawed:

1. God knows everything about everything

2. God created everything

3. Given the first two points, God knew everything there was to know about everything before he created it

4. Given the third point, any action an individual human takes is one that was purposefully determined by God at the creation of the universe

IF such a being exists (remember, I am NOT a believer), then such a being is clearly not constrained by linear time. Therefore, individuals would still have free will within their linear timeline while the God would still know all individual actions because of it's ability to exist in all times at once. This knowledge does not negate free will, because it is outside of it.

[mandalorian2298]

Manda,

Did He intend to create a universe filled with child abusers? What if He decided to create a wide array of creatures at a beginning without knowing what any of them would choose and He's laid out certain rules and guidelines that have been broken and He's created no one knowing that they would rebel against Him? What if He's allowing various things to play out and yet there will be a day of judgement in which everyone is rewarded or punished according to what they have done?

So, God isn't evil, he just doesn't know what his doing which is why he created a universe in which every being must answer for his/hers/its mistakes except for him? Well, I must confess that there is a certain amount of consistency in that argument, for if such a God exists and his intentions were to inspire a love and respect in thinking beings then he has failed his inability to predict the results of his actions has been proven most conclusively.

Seriously though, if I believed that such a God exists, I might feel morally obliged to worship Lucifer.

[john9blue]

If God doesn't know what I'm going to do tomorrow (because I have free will) then one could argue that he's not omniscient.

[PLAYER57832]

If God doesn't know what I'm going to do tomorrow (because I have free will) then one could argue that he's not omniscient.

You confuse "knowing" with "dictating", as Woodruff explained.

[naxus]

If God doesn't know what I'm going to do tomorrow (because I have free will) then one could argue that he's not omniscient.

You confuse "knowing" with "dictating", as Woodruff explained.

Except if he Knows what you doing tommorow then essentially all you choices were made before you had a chance to make them.Which would kill free will entirely

[Frigidus]

Does scripture say He's omniscient? And even if He is, does that mean He's always been?

I like how you go about the place questioning stuff that is accepted as fact by all other believers.

It is fine if his views are a bit unorthodox. If he feels God isn't an omnipotent, omniscient creator then I'm not really arguing with him. At least not right now.

[Woodruff]

If God doesn't know what I'm going to do tomorrow (because I have free will) then one could argue that he's not omniscient.

You confuse "knowing" with "dictating", as Woodruff explained.

Except if he Knows what you doing tommorow then essentially all you choices were made before you had a chance to make them.Which would kill free will entirely

Did you even read what I wrote? Because your statement here leads me to believe that you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it. I'd like to know which, so I know whether to try to explain it better or to ignore you.

[naxus]

If God doesn't know what I'm going to do tomorrow (because I have free will) then one could argue that he's not omniscient.

You confuse "knowing" with "dictating", as Woodruff explained.

Except if he Knows what you doing tommorow then essentially all you choices were made before you had a chance to make them.Which would kill free will entirely

Did you even read what I wrote? Because your statement here leads me to believe that you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it. I'd like to know which, so I know whether to try to explain it better or to ignore you.

Explain it better but I don't believe I missed anything

[Frigidus]

If God doesn't know what I'm going to do tomorrow (because I have free will) then one could argue that he's not omniscient.

You confuse "knowing" with "dictating", as Woodruff explained.

Except if he Knows what you doing tommorow then essentially all you choices were made before you had a chance to make them.Which would kill free will entirely

The key is that it is the first cause. Simply knowing something will occur doesn't negate free will, I agree. We know about events of the past, that doesn't retroactively negate free will. But if we knew about events of the past and had the ability to set up the events to occur exactly as we wanted to, down to every minutia, then there would be no free will.

[Woodruff]

If God doesn't know what I'm going to do tomorrow (because I have free will) then one could argue that he's not omniscient.

You confuse "knowing" with "dictating", as Woodruff explained.

Except if he Knows what you doing tommorow then essentially all you choices were made before you had a chance to make them.Which would kill free will entirely

Did you even read what I wrote? Because your statement here leads me to believe that you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it. I'd like to know which, so I know whether to try to explain it better or to ignore you.

Explain it better but I don't believe I missed anything

Let's presume (logically) that God having created "everything" operates outside of time itself. He can see "all times" because "time" as a concept does not apply to him. Therefore, he knows the future just as he (and we) know the past. Does our knowledge of the past mean that those impacting the past had no free will? I state that it does not.

[Snorri1234]

Does scripture say He's omniscient? And even if He is, does that mean He's always been?

I like how you go about the place questioning stuff that is accepted as fact by all other believers.

It is fine if his views are a bit unorthodox. If he feels God isn't an omnipotent, omniscient creator then I'm not really arguing with him. At least not right now.

Oh I know. It just struck me as funny.

[naxus]

You confuse "knowing" with "dictating", as Woodruff explained.

Except if he Knows what you doing tommorow then essentially all you choices were made before you had a chance to make them.Which would kill free will entirely

Did you even read what I wrote? Because your statement here leads me to believe that you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it. I'd like to know which, so I know whether to try to explain it better or to ignore you.

Explain it better but I don't believe I missed anything

Let's presume (logically) that God having created "everything" operates outside of time itself. He can see "all times" because "time" as a concept does not apply to him. Therefore, he knows the future just as he (and we) know the past. Does our knowledge of the past mean that those impacting the past had no free will? I state that it does not.

For both the past and future, following your arguments, It is a illusion of free will.God knowing the future and all the outcomes means that while we "think" we have a choice, in truth the outcome is already decided or "known" by god.

[Woodruff]

Except if he Knows what you doing tommorow then essentially all you choices were made before you had a chance to make them.Which would kill free will entirely

Did you even read what I wrote? Because your statement here leads me to believe that you either didn't read it or you didn't understand it. I'd like to know which, so I know whether to try to explain it better or to ignore you.

Explain it better but I don't believe I missed anything

Let's presume (logically) that God having created "everything" operates outside of time itself. He can see "all times" because "time" as a concept does not apply to him. Therefore, he knows the future just as he (and we) know the past. Does our knowledge of the past mean that those impacting the past had no free will? I state that it does not.

For both the past and future, following your arguments, It is a illusion of free will.

Are you actually contending that for the SOLE REASON that we are aware that (just to grab a for-instance) Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated President Kennedy, that Lee Harvey Osward had ONLY AN ILLUSION of free will in making the determination of whether to assassinate Kennedy or not? Is that really what you're trying to say? I sincerely hope it is not.

God knowing the future and all the outcomes means that while we "think" we have a choice, in truth the outcome is already decided or "known" by god.

It still strongly appears to me that you either don't understand at all what I'm saying OR you're...someone who is to be ignored on the subject.

[naxus]

Explain what im missing then

[Woodruff]

Explain what im missing then

First, you must explain how Lee Harvey Oswald had no free will in his decision to shoot President Kennedy, simply because we are aware of his actions.

[PLAYER57832]

Explain what im missing then

I think Woodruff did a good job already, but the essence is that knowing something is different from determining it. God can know all, but that does not mean he decides all. He created us, but he created us with free will. He knew, yes, what each of us might decide, but in order that we have free will, does not intervene except occasionally ("miracles").

[naxus]

Explain what im missing then

First, you must explain how Lee Harvey Oswald had no free will in his decision to shoot President Kennedy, simply because we are aware of his actions.

Lee Harvey Oswald had now free will in his decision to shoot JFK as the outcome was already decided

Therefore, he knows the future just as he (and we) know the past.

To Lee Harvey Oswald, he debated with himself as whether or not to commit the act but in the end, that decision was already made

[Woodruff]

Explain what im missing then

First, you must explain how Lee Harvey Oswald had no free will in his decision to shoot President Kennedy, simply because we are aware of his actions.

Lee Harvey Oswald had now free will in his decision to shoot JFK as the outcome was already decided

Why do you believe the outcome was already decided?

Therefore, he knows the future just as he (and we) know the past.

To Lee Harvey Oswald, he debated with himself as whether or not to commit the act but in the end, that decision was already made

Why do you believe the outcome was already decided?

[PLAYER57832]

It is a difficult concept and maybe you just disagree. At any rate, belaboring it now seems rather pointless.

[naxus]

If god is omnipotent, which we agree on, then he knows the end result.Hence why theres no possibility to "surprise god" with a snap decision.The decision has already been made and possibly known for quite some time by god

[PLAYER57832]

If god is omnipotent, which we agree on, then he knows the end result.Hence why theres no possibility to "surprise god" with a snap decision.The decision has already been made and possibly known for quite some time by god

That's just it. Knowing is not the same as deciding.

This is a difficult concept. Maybe you don't understand and maybe you just don't accept that this is true. Either way, I don't think any more explanation are going to make a difference.

[InkL0sed]

You guys are basically arguing that because God is outside time, he is also outside logic. Unless you really want to try to argue that it makes sense that existing at all times at once means we have free will.

What a cop out.

[mandalorian2298]

Explain what im missing then

I think Woodruff did a good job already, but the essence is that knowing something is different from determining it. God can know all, but that does not mean he decides all. He created us, but he created us with free will. He knew, yes, what each of us might decide, but in order that we have free will, does not intervene except occasionally ("miracles").

On the other hand, if he knew in advance the choices that we are going to make then judging us for making them is:

a) hypocritical, since he could have stopped us from making them, had he cared to (I'm not talking determinism here, just plain omnipotence);

b) pointless, because he could have judged us just fine before we made those actions, which means that our actions were not in fact the cause of his judgment; which brings us to

c) sadistic, since a) and b) clearly show that the only reason why God wants to punish us is punishment itself.

[Iliad]

Suppose you see lawnmower is slowly coming towards an incapacitated person: can't walk yet, lost ability to walk, doesn't really matter. The details don't really matter but the situation is that a person is about to die. You could stop it easily, turn it off, slightly turn it away and the life is saved. If you just walk past and let the person die you will rightly be seen as a monster. So I can safely assume we both agree on this.

So why is it if a person does this and so causes a death, a death he or she could've saved without any risk to himself, without any real interruption to his life, one clearly within his power to save, we can both agree and condemn him but if it's your god you have to try and make excuses for him?

Let's say the lawnmower in question is being driven by let's say an infant so there's no risk to the person walking past if he tries to stop him. Would him not stopping the lawnmower now be morally excusable as there's the free will of the driver to consider? no he still lets a murder happen and one that he could've stopped. However because he's your god you have to try and make excuses about 'mysterious ways' and so on.

Your example is far, far too narrow. Add in that perhaps there is a raging fire, about to consume all and if the bystander stops to rescue the other, both will surely die and you might get closer. OR, perhaps add in that this person just ran out of a daycare center behind where he just finished torturing and murdering 12 children and 2 adults. Add in that this person is just sane enough to know they did something horrible and will repeat it if allowed. Add in that they actually prayed "God, take me now".

THEN you begin to get closer (but only a tiny bit closer) to the kind of decisions God must make. We can understand but shadows of God's understanding and choices.

Firstly I made the saving a life completely risk free in the scenario because that's how it is for God. He's omnipotent and omniscient. For God the scenario can be a nuke, a shootout, or a rolling boulder and he can easily stop it because of the omnipotence. The raging fire is completely out of the question because there's nothing that can harm him.

About the murderous about to die baby. That's the point, God could've stopped all those murders, he can save this person's life a lot easier than the bystander can, but if he exists he chooses not to. For him preventing those original deaths would be as easy as preventing this one. Secondly isn't he also omniscient and your moral compass? How can a decision be hard for him if he knows what is morally right and what is morally wrong?
The scenario is completely risk free for him, hell the bystander actually has to walk up to the lawnmower, god can just think to prevent crimes, God knows when all sins are going to committed and he has the power to stop them at no danger to himself, but he chooses not to. But because he's your god you feel compelled to try and make excuses for him.

Also the current argument about free will makes this a lot worse, since God created all of us knowing full well every single sin we would commit. So not only does he know this aeons before it would happen, not only can he stop it with a mere thought he has set the lawnmower so to speak on the incapacitated person.

[PLAYER57832]

Explain what im missing then

I think Woodruff did a good job already, but the essence is that knowing something is different from determining it. God can know all, but that does not mean he decides all. He created us, but he created us with free will. He knew, yes, what each of us might decide, but in order that we have free will, does not intervene except occasionally ("miracles").

On the other hand, if he knew in advance the choices that we are going to make then judging us for making them is:

a) hypocritical, since he could have stopped us from making them, had he cared to (I'm not talking determinism here, just plain omnipotence);

b) pointless, because he could have judged us just fine before we made those actions, which means that our actions were not in fact the cause of his judgment; which brings us to

c) sadistic, since a) and b) clearly show that the only reason why God wants to punish us is punishment itself.

See, here is a bit of a difference in doctrine. Were I Roman Catholic, that might hold (purgatory, et al), though they do hold that God's justice is not the same as ours. That is, God is able to look beyond the surface into a person's true heart and judge that.

At any rate, I see it more as a matter of consequence than judgement. God does judge and judgement is a part of this, but hell and that are a consequence. God did not set that out as our punishment. It happened.

And I am now getting to tired to discuss this. Maybe I can make more sense in the morning.