Why are atheists more concern about Christianity than Islam?
I can't agree with you. I see no difference between extremism between any of the three major religions.
What is worth pointing out is this; Muslim extremism is fueled by poverty and other socio-economic issues, which are fixable with a working government. Turkey is a prime example of this. Turkey is a secular nation with MANY Muslim citizens and a booming economy. No terrorist threats are coming from Turkish non governmental groups, right?
Christian extremism, however, is fueled the opposite: wealth. I find that the richest people in this nation are the ones using Christian values to impose their agenda on an atheist/agnostic nation. I see no separation between church and state from the radical right-wing in our country. I think the recent Hobby Lobby decision highlights my point.
Christians and Zionists get hatred toward them because they are working to undermine secularism in developed countries, and are therefore a greater threat to democracy than Islam.I'm offended by dirty talk.
You are unequivocally, janesix (or whatever your name is. Lol). And can't nobody do it like you... we are all different. Weird is a relative term. Now if you're comparing yourself to me... carry on Hunny! J/k ♡So does that necessarily insinuate that God put you here? There could be other reasons.
No insinuation. I checked. Remember?
The evidence I have is supernatural.
I do not have a video, or the ability to pull it out of my pocket.
I believe that God is... no matter what.
All else must agree.
Islam is on its way to gaining control of the world. Of course Christianity is a target. Christians are being slaughtered throughout the Middle East AND NO SEEMS TO CARE. Bethlehem has almost no Christians living there. They have been run out by the Muslims. Lebanon USED to be a Christian country. They took in Muslim refugees from war torn countries and for their kindness, they were slaughtered. Syria was a Christian country. Look at the mess Islam has brought to it. Europe is being taken over. The Islamization of Europe is frightening. A friend's sister still lives in Germany and the church she grew up attending is now a Mosque. Christians may think they rule the world but the reality is this......it's sinking......
"Christianity is on its way to gaining control of the world. Of course paganism is a target. pagans are being slaughtered throughout the Middle East AND NO SEEMS TO CARE."; a common pagan at the time of Justin.
That was then and Islam is now. Can't change the past, but the future can be changed. I can add hundreds if not thousands of examples where one religion or another butchered their way through history. Don't bury your head in the sand and allow Islam to run amok.
Couldn't agree more. Islam is 600 years behind Christianity. It seems they (the Jewish cults) all eventually get the idea that they need to save the world through destroying all dissenting voices.
This is a time for all moderate peace loving people to get together and fight this. This is why the west has democracy and most importantly, separation between any and all religions and the government. No religion must ever gain political power again.And if you have looked into history deeply you would also find that no outside pressure can change, it has to come from within.
What do you propose, kill all muslims?
Fundamentalism, fanatical religious belief, is at the root of all this, in my opinion. You cannot realistically separate out one or two brands of religion, e.g., Christianity and Islam, as being better than any other or each other. It all depends upon the willingness of people to believe in and look to the mysterious, the magical, the head-in-the-clouds answers for excusing themselves from responsible approach to life.
Believe anything you like, for yourself, for your own edification and for what suits you in your particular society/community. But when you presume that your take on things is the "right way," the only way to behave, then you pave the way for turmoil and war. Sooner or later you will have to confront it or fight it. Or both.
If you suppose that christianity has been the only supporter of humanitarian principles, then you are closing your eyes because of your biased presumptions.I've got a better way to combat that. In a lot of discussions I have with atheists I ask them to please refrain from treating religion as something that conflicts with science. If you make believers feel they have to reject God to accept science then we're never going to get anywhere. We'll still be trying to get evolution taught in schools 50 years from now.
Reconciling science and religion is the answer. My answer applies to Christianity and Islam. And it'll weed out fanaticism as well because it offers a cohesive, much more understandable, narrative that doesn't lend so much to confusion. It clarifies things. It's rational and reasonable and allows people to maintain beliefs in a rational mind state.
Anyone you come across making divisive God/science statements, please refer them to my hubs or to me. I'll straighten them out.
Islam aren't as close minded as some Christians I find, except the extremists. Muslims don't tend to ram their religion down your throat like good Christians do.
Lol, maybe because you don't live in a country with a high percentage of Muslims. Go to one of the several theocratic countries and see if you change your mind. I don't know of a western country that forces their citizens to follow religious customs and puts them to death for not abiding. Even tourists can be jailed for not following these religious customs. I suggest you read a book or pick up a newspaper instead of getting all of your info from the internet.
It seems that everyone is concerned with Christianity right now. The elite fear Christians because they worship demons. If you don't believe this look up General Buttnaked. Funny name yea but he tells you whats going on.
Some people do not realize how much the occult in America has been empowered over the years. Especially with Obama. I will stop there though I can't afford to tell the truth.Oh come on Steve, don't be ridiculous. Humans are the problem. We don't need to dream up some boogie man to blame things on. It's humans with free will, just like you and me, being selfish and self-serving. There's no aid from the occult required.
Looks like humans are emulating god the father of Christianity.
By being selfish, self righteous, jealous, arrogant and self serving - the characteristics of god the father.
That sounds nothing like God. I see a God who went well out of His way to ensure you and I have minds of our own.
I didn't see that. I saw a bungling idiot who knowing beforehand that humans are going to eat a fruit, planted a tree in the midst of them. I see a fellow who is proud of being "jealous", who commanded genocide. And in his son a self righteous arrogant fellow who stoop so low as to call his opponents vipers and sons of satan.
Of course that's all you see. Does the garden scenario not strike you as particularly clear? God created two beings and placed them in an environment where only one rule exists. Then they broke it. This was by design. Adam and Eve, unlike anything else in God's creation, was capable of behaving of their own will, even if their will was in direct conflict with God's. That's the whole point to the whole thing. From that point on the central theme to the whole story is human behavior. Given that all the natural world behaves in very particular ways, the fact that we can behave willfully and that our behavior is not governed by natural laws is the whole point to everything God did.
Only AFTER eating the fruit Adam and Eve could discern right from wrong, didn't you see that?
It was by design, god's design. He wanted them to break it. If my one child does anything, I won't punish her and I will never kick her out. In his self righteousness Mr. god did that to two kids who could NOT discern right from wrong. What was he expecting? So it is "particularly" clear.
Now what has humans god to do with god's proud boast that he is jealous or his son calling his opponents vipers or god commanding his followers to kill humans and animals and even children?
Can I call you a viper in this discussion? Will that be civil? Even if I call you that, is it my fault or yours? But if I call you that, I will be emulating god the son and if I killed you I will be emulating god the father, which I call barbaric.
And in his self righteousness he destroyed all humans and animals in flood.
PS:-It is god's behavior that is under discussion not human's.That is exactly what He was expecting. Think about it, the whole first chapter says that all the natural world, all of God's creation, behaves exactly as He wills it to. Then He creates these two beings, puts them in an environment where He creates only one rule, and they break it. This is simply illustrating what was significant about Adam and Eve. Their ability to behave contrary to God's will is the equivalent of matter being able to choose to not conform to gravity. It's unnatural.
It's is human behavior that warranted all that God did. Free will meant God was no longer in control. God had to do what He had to do in an environment no longer under His control. What you see as bullying I see as totally necessary.
Besides, if God is supposed to be the embodiment of the natural world, then does it not make sense that He's share a lot of the same characteristics? Nature is harsh, is it not? So then why shouldn't God be harsh? There were at least six mass extinctions in our past that shaped us into what we are today. The flood was simply a seventh mass extinction event. So the God of the bible continued trends seen long before humans existed. Just as should be expected.The first humans got free will or the ability to know right and wrong or whatever ONLY AFTER THEY ATE the fruit. They were NOT GUILTY because they didn't know. (That behaviour of god is called self serving self righteousness. )
And it is not because they ate the fruit god started to behave like Stalin.
Does that mean that your god is impotent or merely incompetent?
That is what I said, the selfishness and self serving behaviour is an emulation of the Christian god, you are simply detailing to obscure it.Whether they knew or not is irrelevant. What is relevant is that they were able to behave in way that directly contradicted God's will. So God created exactly what He set out to. A truly free will.
The story told perfectly illustrates exactly that. You just choose to read it the way you do.They didn't have any will, you consider young children to have "free will"?
The story perfectly illustrate the bully that god is and his arrogant self righteousness. Even humans punish only those people who can understand the consequences of their action and punishment should be in proportion. This god is not even half as good as humans. Then why do you blame humans for emulating the selfish despot?You're looking at it all wrong. The biggest misconception about the God of the OT is the significant role that free will played in what was going on. Free will is a will apart from God's. Think about it, it really does make us 'like Gods' like Genesis says. It makes us creators. We actually add actions and decisions to this reality that are not 'of God' but are 'of us'. That's a big responsibility. We're components in a very intricate system, yet we've been given free reign and no instruction manual. We learn through trial and error.
It helps if you read the OT as if God is a kind of scientist working with a volatile element that does things He can't anticipate. Think about it. First God tests His creation by placing them in a very scientific test kind of scenario. Then He acts as a kind of breeder, basically creating Jesus. First He picks a specimen who shows favorable traits, Noah, and breeds from him. Separates him from the rest of the flock and goes from there. Then he chooses a specimen in that bloodline, Abraham, and actually tests him. Will his will override God's will if it's something his will really wants. When Abraham passed the test God chose to breed from Abraham and promised him his descendants would be many. Those descendants God gave very specific rules about who to hang out with, who to avoid, who to breed with, who not to, what to eat. All the things a breeder would do when attempting to breed specific traits.
See, the things God did in the OT were not the preferred way God wanted things to go. Like it says in Genesis 6, God 'regretted' His actions because the result warranted a flood. Once God introduced free will, only then could He see what happened. Because free will is a will that acts independently of God. It's not His will, it's ours. God in the OT is a God working in an environment that free will created and that He does not control.Have you ever been with children? You ask them to do something they will but later sometimes curiosity overwhelms them. But if another came along and assure them they can do it they will. The same is the case with the first humans.
Once again, we are discussing not human nature but the over reaction of god and his incompetence and impotence.
Is he not omniscient?
Why then he didn't choose any bloodline after jesus? Did he concede that his experiments were again a failure? Is he really such a bungling idiot as you paint him to be?
So he is incompetent after all, can't do a good work?No, again, you don't seem to get the significance of free will. If God knew what to anticipate, then it wouldn't truly be a free will. God created a boulder so large even He can't move it. He created a will totally independent of His.
The test was to see if their will would overcome God's will. Like a child who's will overtakes your instructing them not to do something. There was one law in that environment, when rule, and they broke it because their own will overrode that rule. That story perfectly illustrates what is significant about Adam and Eve.
Yes, He is omniscient. If you exist apart from time as God does, then you see all time all at once. But time only goes the one way. Once free will was introduced it changed the timeline. Changed the events. Before God introduced free will He couldn't anticipate what would happen. But once He did He could see all that resulted all at once. This does not diminish God's omniscience. This highlights how truly significant a free will is. It's something that even God had trouble with.So god is not omniscient. And he is incompetent too. But what has that got to do with his self righteous arrogance, his "holier than thou" attitude? And is he such an idiot who cannot anticipate or guess?
And no, no free will, they were simply obeying the snake. So did the snake have free will?
So he is not omnipotent.
That does not make them guilty, make them innocent ,if you have ever dealt with children. Simply swaying with the current, living at the moment.
So once free will was introduced god lost his omniscience, so he is not now?
And no I am not talking to you about human's free will but god's nasty behavior.It's not self righteousness or arrogance. It's a simple necessity. God is the DNA of existence. You and I are cells, individual components in a much bigger system. But unlike the rest of the natural world, we don't inherently follow the DNA code of the system we're a part of. We choose how to behave. And just as we're finding through global warming and population issues and starvation and such, we're doing a bad job of just living in harmony with the system we're a part of. We're too selfish and self serving.
If we ever hope to exist as individuals, with our own minds and wills and not restricted in any way eternally, then it becomes a necessity that each participant willingly choose to acknowledge God's authority as the DNA of existence. To acknowledge His authority and the fact that He truly knows best.
Think of it in terms of traffic laws. Each of us are free to go where ever we choose. To use the community road systems to travel anywhere we want whenever we want. But to earn your right to access those streets you have to prove you know the rules and how to operate the machinery you're going to drive. To enable to road systems to be used by numerous people, all willing to go places at the same time freely, then rules and an authority becomes necessary.
So it's not arrogance or self righteousness, it's simply how it must be.
The snake merely made a suggestion. Not a command. Eve took the fruit not because the snake told her to, but because it specifically explains that she took it because she wanted the wisdom that came with it and because it looked good to eat. There's a reason it specifically says that. It's relevant to the story being told. The story about wills.
Yes, God is omniscient.
You're thinking of guilt and innocence in terms of pure morality. We're talking about necessity. A cell in a body going rogue and behaving in ways contrary to the DNA code of the body is a malicious cell. It's a cancer. And it harms the rest of the system it is now taking from rather than contributing to.
This isn't about being bad or good. This is about having the free will to choose how you live and what you do and whether or not those things are a hindrance to others who wish to do the same. It's simple logistics.
God's behavior and free will are intertwined. Everything He did He did because of free will. It's the meaning of life. Just think about it. If you were a God capable of creation would you only create things that do exactly what you always expect, only behave as you want, or would you want others around that have their own minds and do their own things? Okay, so how do you go about that?
No, the introduction of free will does not lessen God and what He's capable of. This simply illustrates how truly great of a gift free will is. It's a lot of responsibility. God's basically making each of us creators and allowing each of us to add to and change His creation. The things we make are not 'of God' but are 'of us'. We make art and music and architecture that is all ours. Born of human minds. Human creations. And we wipe out species of animals and trash our environment by our own doing. We harm others by selfishly keeping more than we need. It's all our doing. What we do matters here. That's what it's all about.
How would you go about imparting the wisdom necessary to wield something as powerful as free will on those you created? It's simply about what's necessary. This life, human history, this is just the kind of knowledge base one would need to wield free will thoughtfully and carefully.Most of what you wrote is simply irrelevant, Red herring.
" If you were a God capable of creation would you only create things that do exactly what you always expect, only behave as you want, or would you want others around that have their own minds and do their own things? "
Then I will not punish them for using the freedom I gave them. Kindly refer the dictionary regarding the meaning of freedom.
"The snake merely made a suggestion. Not a command. Eve took the fruit not because the snake told her to, but because it specifically explains that she took it because she wanted the wisdom that came with it and because it looked good to eat. There's a reason it specifically says that. It's relevant to the story being told. The story about wills."
DID the SNAKE HAVE FREE WILL?
The snake said they would become god like and it looked good to eat, and they ate, that is how a child behaves not someone who deliberates his actions.
God is not omniscient nor omnipotent according to you, again check the dictionary. You cannot simply assert that god knows everything beforehand and in the same sentence claim god didn't know what humans were upto. So which is it, did god know humans were going to eat the fruit?
God is a despot because planting the tree and awarding death is what despots do.
God is selfish and arrogant because he want to be worshipped.
God is a bully because he was indeed bullying Adam and Eve.
He is a nasty bully because he punish severely for even that he himself cannot do.
See, human's behaviour has no part in judging god.
" We're talking about necessity."
What was the necessity for planting that tree there?Do you consider it punishment to remove cancerous cells from someone's body? Is it punishment to shoot lions that have been attacking your people? It's not punishment for the sake of punishment. It's punishment to further allow this eternal life with free will to exist. There must be rules. Just like there are rules on the road that allows everyone the freedom to go where ever they wish without barreling into one another. Rules are simply necessary. With freedom comes the necessity of rules and an authority to enforce them.
No, the snake didn't have free will. The snake is serving a purpose. The devil serves a purpose and is clearly working with God. Has to get God's permission to jack with Job. He does not have free will.
I've explained this. God can see all time all at once. When God introduced free will into the world, He did not know what would happen until free will was a part of reality. Once it was He could then see it. It's really simple. This is why it says in Gen6 that this all knowing being "regretted" something.
The necessity for the tree was to give them a rule they could break. To test His creation. To test free will. There has to be the capability to break the rules.Are we talking about cancerous cells, does cancerous cells got "free will"? The bible do not talk about eternal life, but only about "death". And they got the ability only after taking the fruit, the bible clearly shows that they were simply flowing what others told them, god said do not eat they didn't then a snake came then they did. Which part of Adam was cancerous? I didn't see god removing anything nor creating any new humans but merely condemning humans and HIS Descendants (who did nothing) to death. Self righteousness and idiocy at its height!!
Rules are guidance, and it is applicable only to those who can understand and act on it.
I am not talking about devil but the snake. So it was god himself who sent the snake?
Please do not talk nonsense. Omniscience means the ability to know the future and if god cannot know he is NOT omniscient. According to what you say once god created free will he lost his ability to omniscience.
God is omniscience means our future is god's past, both cannot be true at the same time.
So god is not omniscient nor omnipotent. And god though is arrogant, selfish and self serving it is by his nature and necessity and we should not point it out?
I will make it simple for you, did god know that the humans were going to eat the fruit?
If no he was not omniscient.
If yes, knowing that why did he plant the tree?
Just like a scientist who cannot know the future, test in his lab? So what difference does god got to do with a human? And why was god punishing humans for god's ignorance?
And what all these got to do with god being "jealous"?
This is not true. I have seen a lot of athiest who were specially hitting Islam. You should change your community.
Islam does try to force Islam on people. Die or convert. Muslims are so intolerant they will kill anyone who speaks out against them. Christians are so much more forgiving and therefore suffer the slings and arrows of insults. Muslims seem to be ubber sensitive and insecure. I think Atheists target the older religions which are more widespread in the western cultures and therefore are the target of western atheists,
Some Muslims....... Some Christians........ would make all the difference to your intentions and your statements, would it not?
Some.....how about most.....even moderate Muslims believe they should kill those who insult Islam....most Christians ignore bad taste jokes about Jesus. We don't kill people who demean our religion. Go to a Muslim country and try to say a Muslim joke in place of any Chrisitian joke and see what happens. Three bloggers in Pakistan have been hacked to death for writing agnostic blogs. Touchy, touchy bunch aren't they?
If you were born a hundred years before you would say that. It seems the kettle is calling the pot....
In theory an being with omniscience would not need to be thoughtful as there would be nothing to figure out. The consequence of every possible action would be immediately known to them.
Except in the case of free will. There's a level of uncertainty inherent in what it is. If it is not uncertain and unpredictable then it is not truly a free will.
See this is where the story of the bible is much smarter than I think people give it credit for. First they set up this character as this all knowing/all seeing being, but then actually write a story that's relevant to this character in that it's actually dealing with something that's a struggle even for this being to handle. That's just good writing.
It's kind of like the problem of trying to write a compelling story for Superman. He's already so powerful and capable, how do you put him into a situation that's truly dangerous for him? The writers of Genesis actually managed to do that. Not an easy task given the central character is an all-powerful God.Which makes quite a conundrum, doesn't it? You can't have omniscience and ignorance in the same entity.
Yes, the bible writers did so, but they did so by conveniently..."forgetting"...the omniscience part whenever free will is discussed/used. We see the same thing today, with people claiming that ignorance of something does not mean "don't know". That way God can "not know" future events while still knowing everything including future events.Free will doesn't lessen God's capabilities. It's ability to be a difficult element to handle stresses just how powerful free will is. It's uncertainty for even God.
God still sees all time all at once, so He immediately knows the future. He just couldn't see it until free will was actually introduced. Once it became part of the story the timeline changed. That changed timeline was seen by God immediately, past, present, and future. All at once. But until free will was part of the story God could not see that future. Could not anticipate it.
See, free will and omniscience, at the same time.That's kind of what I said - we'll claim not knowing the future is the same as knowing it. By using the sophistry of not knowing until it happens is the same as knowing the future we will pretend that not knowing = knowing and thus there is no problem.
But He does know it. As soon as free will is a reality, God knows past/present/future of that new reality. There was no future to see when free will wasn't part of the story.
Thus, there is no problem.He knows what you will do in the future? The inescapable conclusion is then that you have no free will; that you cannot do anything He does not know. Or is the claim that "free will" means to do exactly what God says to?
And of course there was a "future to see" without free will: scientists do it all the time when they predict, say, where a planet will be at a specific time.God's knowledge of what you will do does not remove your capability to choose to do it. The future is set from His perspective, not from ours. We are the ones in the moment making the decisions. That's why free will is so significant. We're making decisions and choosing actions while being completely disconnected from the system. We're rogue elements, since the moment Eve att that fruit. Severed from the rest. Now individuals.
That's the thing with free will. It's unpredictable. It doesn't follow the simple progression that a germinating plant seed does. It's erratic.Headly, you can talk around it all you wish. You can claim that knowledge = ignorance and you can say that God's "perspective" is different than ours. But at the end of the day if He knows what you will do tomorrow then He knows and nothing you can do will change that.
So either we have that unpredictable free will, whereupon God cannot predict the future, or we do not. And if He can predict it (knows the future) then we do not have free will. All the spin, all the twisting, all the refuting of the obvious will not change that simple idea.According to god's perspective omniscience is NOT seeing the future, omnipotence is being NOT able to do many things, selfishness, bullying and arrogance is only when god is not involved. God always want his followers to do what he himself cannot and the worst in a human is the most respectable in a god. According to the bible, seeing gods face invite death ( horrendous face probably), but who is giving death?
According to god's perspective probably heaven is hell and eternal is 80 years!Don't know about the 80 years, but "this generation" has lasted over 2,000 now.
That is the average life expectancy(rounded to the highest) of a developed nation and according to god's perspective eternal can be 80 or 110 years. If god is fooling christians, its not fooling but simply necessity and omniscience.
May be eternal is "one" generation with 2100 years or may be only a minute.
Look Wilderness, it's really simple. If your wife knows you'll want eggs tomorrow morning because that's what you always want, does that remove your ability to willfully want eggs? No. Someone else knowing what you'll do doesn't change your ability to choose in that moment. You're the one making the choice and you, unlike God, don't have knowledge of what will come after. You, being in the moment, have the choice. the choice is yours. God's ability to see tomorrow doesn't not remove your choice in that moment.
I'm just talking the facts of the case. If God is indeed the creator then He exists apart from the universe, and therefore exists apart from time and space as we perceive it. These are the facts of the case.
The universe without the introduction of free will existed just as God willed it and He deemed it all "good". The universe, if it had continued to work like that, would never have done anything God didn't anticipate. Evil was not even possible. But then God created free will through creating Adam/Eve. That changed the events of time. Now He sees this new future now that free will exists and is allowed to do what it's going to do. Now He can see it all.
I'm not talking around anything. I'm simply taking what's described in the context of how we now understand reality.But, and this is the crux of it all, my wife doesn't know what I'll want. She can only guess, based on past history. I can go all weird on her and demand pancakes today instead of the eggs I've had for the past 20 years.
But if a god knows it will be eggs, then eggs it will be and I cannot change my mind to pancakes. I do not have the free will to do that.Yes you do. In that moment you have the free will to choose differently. And if you do God will see that. Not because the future is set. But because He can already see it. It's still fluid. He can just see the whole run on the river. It's simply a difference in perspective. We exist within time, He exists apart from it. We're the one making the choices, therefore we still have the freedom to make whatever choice we want.
Not so, and saying the future is not set but God can see it already set but fluid and changeable although He knows what each moment will be does not change anything. Double talk and without meaning, in other words.
Assume God wrote in His Big Book that you will have eggs tomorrow. Come tomorrow morning, can you have pancakes? Not if God is right, you can't! And thus you have no free will.
Whether God sees the "whole run" at once, as you claim (an unfounded claim that is not only without support but false as well), doesn't matter. What matters is that tomorrow morning you will eat eggs and not pancakes. You do not have the free will to make any other choice, and using the sophistry of saying that you already made the choice in God's "perception" is just that; a sophistry to get around the truth that you can make no other choice.Look, it's really quite simple. This is now dimensions work. To Bugs Bunny there's only left and right. There is no forward or backward. But to you and I there is. To you and I there is time. But to God there isn't. He's not affected by time, doesn't exist moment to moment as we do.
Time is not a book. It's fluid. fluid for you. If you decide to switch up at the last minute and switch to pancakes, then when God looks at the future He sees you switching to pancakes. God can see it, not because it's set, but because that's what you did in that moment.Which is what I said in the first post: if free will exists (and I assume it does) then God cannot know the future.
Because, just as you said, time is fluid and changeable. It is not set, and God cannot see the future. (Again, the nonsense of Him seeing you change your mind is just a sophistry - if that were the case you would have pancakes, not eggs, and the problem remains).
God is not, therefore, omniscient regardless of the words of priests throughout history. Call them misinformed, call them liars, call them ignorant, call them anything we wish. The fact is that the made up tale of God knowing everything there is to know is untrue. That's OK - I don't recall anything in the bible that says that anyway, and if there is we can just say it was a metaphor or exaggeration, like the Flood. I don't even know of any other god that is claimed to be omniscient, either.You still don't get it. God seeing tomorrow is like you seeing tomorrow, tomorrrow. Only it's not tomorrow to God. It's not today either. It's neither. He exists in both places simulaneously. He doesn't exist as you and I do, present consciously in each moment, just one moment at a time. God can see time all at once. Time is something you and I experience because we, like time, are products of this universe. God is not. God exists exactly the same in every moment everywhere.
These are just ideas you made up. You have no way of knowing what the experience of God is, if there is one. This is just a product of your imagination, nothing more. What do you have to base it on?
There is nothing in physics that says a God like figure could live outside of time and the material universe/be able to create time and the physical universe. You are just regurgitating ideas that are total speculation(and could never be proven/disproven anyway).
If God created the universe then He exists apart from it, meaning He also exists apart from the dimensions of time and space.
Your big assumption is that a God created the universe.
What do you think he created it OUT of?How can matter exist outside the universe?
But of course you're only being facicious, because when you break it down, your theory breaks down.
Doesn't it?God made a universe that first made matter, then shaped it.
How? What did he use to make the matter of the universe? You have to start with something.
If the universe is eternal, you don't need to start with anything.No, you really don't. Not if you're God. The universe did in fact come forth from nothing. Where the singularity came from nobody knows, but within it came all the necessary components to form a universe.
Says who? The standard physics is that the universe did, in fact, come from something. Not "nothing".
There is zero evidence that there was a singularity.Says Lawrence Krauss for one. Here's watch this ... https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-EilZ4VY5Vs
There's evidence of a singularity. The mathematics of the universe, when rolled back, shows it all going back to there. Singularities are what exists at the heart of a black hole. We know they're there, and that it's most likely one of these our universe inflated out from.Have you even read his book, "A Universe from Nothing"? I just read it a couple of days ago. He doesn't mean "nothing" The building blocks were present.
Yeah, somehow all the necessary components were just there. The fundamental components that when introduced into this environment shaped by the natural forces create a universe and you and I.
Yes, the building blocks already there, and the laws of physics. No God needed.
A continuous, eternal, torus shaped universe would explain everything. That the universe appears to have a beginning, appears to be expanding. All conservation laws preserved. Makes sense to me. And there's scientific proof for it too.So, let me get this straight. Somehow all the necessary components already existed, from where we have no idea, and the laws of physics needed to shape those components were already there as well. Where the hell do you get from that that no God is needed?
Why is a God needed if everything already exists, eternally?
No need for God to poof things into existence, is there?So how do these components already exist? And how is it that these components and those laws just happen to be all that's needed to form a universe? You don't find that massively convenient?
If it's a torus universe (which there is scientific evidence for) it could have always existed, it just constantly recycles. From our perspective, it just looks like there's a beginning, where there is none. It also looks like it's expanding in some parts, so that fits with what we see as well.
An eternal universe makes more sense than one with a beginning, one that came from nothing.
If you can imagine an eternal God, why can't you imagine an eternal universe?
And I have scientific evidence for my theory, you don't have any scientific evidence for God.
I just learned of this today, so I am new to the idea. But it's a great idea, explains a lot,and I like it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Three-toru … e_universeI get what you're saying. But even a perpetually recycling universe requires all the necessary components to work. Not just some cosmic accident, but deliberately made that way. We know intelligence exists. It's a natural product of this universe. So why is it so out of bounds to suggest these components and these laws that work together just so to create the universe and us is the result of an intelligent being who deliberately made things to work this way? Why must we be the only forms of intelligence in our scenarios trying to explain existence?
I just don't see the NEED for a God to create the universe. It's an extra added step that needs to be accounted for. Something MORE that needs to be explained.
Occam razors says there's no need for an extra step.
I can say the universe just exists, with no creater. You can say God exist with no creator. Same thing. But mine is simpler than yours.Uh, no, not unnecessary. You're talking about components existing that work together and work in the environment created by these natural laws in just such a way as to create stars and planets and life. There is definitely a NEED.
If Occam's razor says there's no need then Occam's an idiot.
Yours is simpler because it's missing some pretty significant explanations.Who created God, who is intelligent and obviously complicated?
God existed before the universe, therefore before time, therefore requires no beginning.
You're not going to side-step complexity. There's already plenty of complexity that can't be accounted for without a God. Just saying it happened leaves a lot unexplained.And I'm saying, the same goes for God. God is complex too. Does not God's complexity need an explanation, in your world view? Why does ONLY the complexity of the universe need an explanation,and not God?
You aren't being consistent.
I am. I say that the universe, which is complex, needs no explanation. Just like you say God, who is complex, needs no explanation. I just take out the unnessesary step. You ADD extra complexity by adding God into the picture.No. Your claiming the one step that explains how things work together in just such a way to result in something that's greater than the sum of its parts is unnecessary and can be removed. A car without an engine is less complex, but doesn't work for shit. You're acting like those components that work together in just such a way as to result in a universe, both matter/energy as well as the fundamental laws, can just happen like that. Though there's no explanation for any of it.
When an archaeologist digs up something they can tell whether or not it's 'man-made' because it's something that was shaped in just such a way and serves some sort of purpose. We see the same in the natural world, so reason tells us there's a maker. An intelligence that formed this thing that way to serve a purpose.And you're claiming the exact same thing by claiming God needs no explanation. I can explain how human intelligence evolved, through evolution. You God's intelligence "just happened" according to you.
No, I'm saying that the universe didn't just happen. That it shows signs of deliberate, intelligent intent. It doesn't work your way. You seem to think a kitchen can run just having the ingredients, but no chef. It doesn't work that way.
That's only your opinion. I say it does work that way.
And you keep avoiding talking about my point, that God is complex as well,and needs an explanation (in your world view, not mine).
When are you going to explain where God came from?I didn't avoid it. I said you're not going to avoid complexity. Just trying to take it out doesn't do anything. Next time you go to the store, just put all the ingredients in the kitchen and just wait for something to be made. You don't do that do you? Why? Because that's silly. It's silly to think something would just be made on it's own without you making it, isn't it?
Things in nature self-organize all the time. They simply follow the rules of nature,and organize themselves into complex systems. This is a proven fact. Bubbles self-organize in a pot of boiling water. Iron filings self-organize along the lines of force of a magnet. Biological systems self-organize. Molecules self-organize according to the laws of physics. Do you think God steps in and tells chemicals to bond to each other?
There are rules we don't know of course, but it is obvious that if simpler things self-organize according to laws, then more complex things self-organize according to laws as well.No, how impressive of a creator would God be if He then had to oversee every little thing that happened? According to how He's described, a universe that seems to form itself is exactly what we should expect to see.
Yes, exactly, things in nature self-organize. Chaos becomes order. And you think that just happens that way?Yes, I do.
You think God "just happened that way" so I think you can ultimately understand where I'm coming from.
Yet, you expect me to believe God is intelligent, without any form of evolution.Evolution is how things come to be in an environment like this, where time exists. Changes over time. You don't have that where time doesn't exist. There's no beginning, no end, and no changes over time.
So it's not strange to you at all that chaos becomes order, that simple self-organizes into complex systems all by itself? We know intelligence exists, that intelligence is most often the explanation behind other things that show order and organization. But because you don't see super-natural hands involved in the process, you think it just happens on its own?You have no proof that anything can exist outside of time or the universe.
I don't see why you think it's strange that I think complexity happens on it's own. You think complexity happens on it's own WITHOUT any order or structure, rules, time or laws(as in God) I personally think that is strange.
It makes more sense that things evolve complexity over time, which is what we see in nature, from the formation of matter from quarks all the way up to biological complexity. Not that things just "are" like you think God is.I don't think you realize the level of convenience involved. Take abiogenesis as an example. You've got multiple seemingly independently formed components that work together in such a way as to create something remarkable. You've got nucleotides and you've got lipids. Lipids bond together, naturally, and form spherical objects. These spheres naturally allow nucleotides to pass through and get inside, but don't allow polynucleotides to pass back out. So they naturally encourage nucleotides to come inside and form together and not leave. Then you've got the clay that these components existed in happening to be the perfect catalyst for this process.
The same goes for the formation of matter. If the natural laws weren't just as they are, if matter/energy didn't work just as they do, then nothing would happen. So it's not just the components, but them existing together in a way that allows them to interact, there's the environment itself lending to the process. These cannot be dismissed as coincidence. It's no coincidence that these elements exist together and work together in such a specific way.
Without the natural tendencies of these components working together as they do then you'd never get complexity over time. It's only because these things interact as they do that creates complexity.I've never said I think it's accidental, or coincidence, that things exist this way. I think they are inevitable. I think this is a living universe,and is meant to be this way.
Meant this way means purposefully intended. Which means deliberately made this way. If it's meant to be this way then it was made as intended. There can be no meaning if there was no deliberate intent.
If it isn't an accident, or coincidence, then it was deliberately created.And you still haven't answered her question, how did god's "complexity" get a "special pleading" while universe's not?
"There's already plenty of complexity that can't be accounted for without a God. "
You say that because...what? You don't understand it or because you have definitive proof that such complexity requires a god?I say that because I do understand. I've built things from nothing before and I can assure you it doesn't just happen.
So how do these god already exist? And how is it that these god has complexity if by your premise complexity needs creation? You don't find that massively convenient?
There's no time, so there's no finding a beginning. And who said complexity needs creation? There may be a whole other reality where God is concerned, but it's all beyond what we can know or confirm. We can only work with what we have access to. And given all the info, a deliberate creator is the most likely explanation. The God of the bible the most likely deity.
If there is no beginning, how did you get a creator?
So you mean god is not complex? Do not need to think?
But something that can "deliberate" should be complex!
"And who said complexity needs creation?"
You said or is it same as the 'unable to predict future omniscience'?No, I was talking about the complexity that comes from disorder and chaos. That evolves. God didn't evolve. God predates the universe and therefore exists apart from space-time. He has no beginning and does not change over time. He exists exactly the same in every moment everywhere.
If you look into your blood you will only see disorder and chaos but in reality it is not. So just by looking at a very small part of the universe how did you decide that everything is evolved, especially considering that major part of universe has no organisation otherthan that given by gravity?
Again how did you arrive at the conclusion that there is only one non evolved one?
So there was beginningless complexities but simple ones need helping hand even if we know that most order in this universe, even the simple ice flake, doesn't need a helping hand?
Omnipresence is an oxymoron, but probably you didn't know that either?
And you may not realise that a being that "regrets" has changed.Because there is a constant, unchanging, set of laws that manage this place. That give it order. Set since the beginning to ultimately shape matter and energy into what it is today. Planets, stars, you and I. These laws are so consistent, that even though we can't directly observe them, we can define them by observing their effects on matter/energy.
Helping-hand? Why are you always looking for magic? Is that what you think God's work looks like? Why? Based on what? Why would God need to constantly override His own creation? God's work is the order we see. When you take chaotic randomness, bouncing particles, aimless disarray, and form order. By laws that make it all fall in line. God doesn't wave a magic wand. God created a universe that simply becomes what He wills it to be. A natural world that by all appearances seems to have formed itself is exactly what you should expect to see. The universe God created is not one that requires His constant involvement and management. It's one that perpetuates itself.
Omnipresence is exactly what a being who exists apart from space-time would be from our perspective.
And yes, that 'regret', that's a significant clue that points to the impact free will has on the story. It shows that even God could not anticipate what would happen when free will was set loose. Because it's no longer His will in control.What is the order in a nebula?
There is only one law - gravity.
Now what has this got to do with my questions?
How do you explain the increase in "chaos"?
What did god create? If the present universe with order doesn't need god's involvment, what is this "complexity needs creation" you are talking about?
Please check the dictionary and understand the meaning of omnipresence before writing such nonsensical statement. An omnipresent being cannot be apart.
So he is not omniscient. But what I contradicted is your statement that "god doesn't change". He regretted means he changed. It's unfortunate that you make so many contradictions. If it is deliberate I will have to question your intention and if it is made unknowingly, your education.The order is gravity. The natural laws. The electromagnetism that binds matter together. God's will IS natural law. There is no other cause.
God created a self-perpetuating universe. An environment to allow beings with free will to live and learn. To learn to wield free will. To learn the damage it does.
The complexity I speak of is that which comes from the simple building blocks and become more than the sum of their parts. Like life. A bunch of elements come together and create complex organized systems.
An omnipresent being is a being not within our realm of time and space, so from our perspective, being in time and space, God is everywhere at once, exactly the same in every moment, unchanged.
Free will is what changed. God didn't change. God just couldn't anticipate what would happen when He introduced free will. In this instance He regretted putting humans in the same image and likeness on the planet because the descendants of Adam and Eve began to interbreed with them (Gen 6). This introduced free will into naturally evolved humans and made them "wicked". God had to call and audible, the flood, to account for what He didn't anticipate. Thus He regretted it.
I have a novel idea, instead of being like everyone else and assuming I'm an uneducated moron because I don't agree with you, why don't you give me the benefit of the doubt and be open to the idea, just for a moment, that maybe I know something you don't and that you could maybe actually learn something new here? These accusations of lack of education and a need to look things up is old and worn. It takes me twice as long to get through to people because I have to spend 10 posts convincing them that I actually do know what I'm talking about and am actually using these terms in the correct way.You first say all these complexity need god then in the next line say it doesn't.
God should have a mechanism to think and that mechanism is more complex than any "natural laws". If complexity can only evolve god should be the product of evolution.
Or are you telling me that all those simple things need creation?
If he is not in our realm he is not omnipresent. In fact if he's present everywhere except even a micromillimeter sq area he is not omnipresent.
And if he thinks he change, absolute static has no thinking. At the least the thought has changed.
He regretted it. Before that time there was no regret, so there was a change - from non regret to regret. Don't tell me you don't even know what change means.
You are contradicting yourself. Contradictory statements in plain English is called nonsense. When you cannot even make a noncontradictory statement and you tell me you know more that tells me you are deliberately trying to decieve or is thinking me as a moron.
Eg
1) Omniscient but don't know future.
2) Omnipresent but is apart....
Do I need to list more?
It's just like telling square circle.
God anticipated what would happen when He introduced free will. - omniscient
God just couldn't anticipate what would happen when He introduced free will. - Not omniscient.God doesn't need a mechanism. You're thinking in terms of this universe. This universe requires material mechanization. Intelligence, consciousness, a will, these things seem beyond the mere capabilities of material matter. They're something more. Something we can't just dismiss as complexity of the brain. It's still matter and matter obeys laws. If that's the case then we're just biological machines, passive observers, unable to willfully change the course of our brain's reaction to the environment it's in.
If God's not in our realm, if He exists in a realm outside of our concept of time and space, which are only really illusions, then He is omnipresent. See, outside of time there is no span of time between past and present. And outside of space there is no space between here and there.
Yes, the change was free will. The component God could not anticipate. This wasn't a change in God. God's still fundamentally the same. But the result was not the desired one.
You're failing. With free will God truly created a boulder so large even He can't move it. He created a will truly separate from His own. He could not know the future that free will would bring until free will was part of the equation. Then He instantly knew. Therefore, omniscient. Once free will was a reality, He knew all of that reality, including the future.
My answers remain consistent no matter how you question it because they're true and accurate. And they will continue to be that way. And somewhere along the way, if you actually stick with it, you'll realize that.
I have not once contradicted myself. It's your lack of understanding properly that only makes it seem that way. I'll continue to be consistent and eventually it'll click. Unfortunately, it seems, this bit is unavoidable. First I have to make you realize that I do know what I'm talking about and that what I'm saying isn't what you think. First you have to realize that it could actually be you, and not me, whose wrong. That generally takes time because you intellectual types tend to think you know everything and that anyone who thinks differently is somehow less smart. Be original. Open your mind and don't be so arrogant.
Yes, I believe in a God. This does not make me intellectually less than you. What I believe is backed up biblically, historically, archaeologically, etc. I have heavily researched and verified all that I am saying. You will realize, eventually, that what I'm saying is sound and reasonable. how long that takes is up to you and how long it takes you to get over yourself.God need something, nothing cannot think.
If he is only outside then he is NOT inside. If something is not everywhere you can’t call it omnipresent.
Omnipresent
adjective om•ni•pres•ent \-zənt\
: present in all places at all times
Full Definition of OMNIPRESENT
: present in all places at all times
So you cannot claim that he omnipresent and outside that is contradictory, nonsense.
And much of your sentence is meaningless.
concept
noun con•cept \ˈkän-ˌsept\
: an idea of what something is or how it works
Full Definition of CONCEPT
1: something conceived in the mind : THOUGHT, NOTION
2: an abstract or generic idea generalized from particular instances
The question is whether god changed, god changed. One minute he was content, the next he “regretted”. From being content to regret, a change. Do I have to get a definition for “change” too?
omniscient
adjective om•ni•scient \-shənt\
: knowing everything : having unlimited understanding or knowledge
Full Definition of OMNISCIENT
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge
Omniscience has nothing to do with free will, either god is omnipotent or not, he can see future or he can’t. You cannot claim that he knows future and do not know future at the same time.
So if he is omniscient, free will or not, he should know all actions of humans before it happens.
So my question,
DID GOD KNOW THAT ADAM WAS GOING TO EAT THAT FRUIT?
CUT ALL THE NONSENSE AND SAY YES OR NO. Then we will decide upon free will. You are using "free will" as a RED HERRING to discussion on omniscience.
You are consistent but contradictory, none of your sentences make sense.
That means either you do not understand that you are making a contradiction or you refuse to understand. Probably that is why wilderness and others left after trying.
You write so many words without understanding the meaning of the terms or you are using it incorrectly. You are using the words for its pleasing effect rather than its meaning.
Square and circle are both meaningful terms, but when you use it in a sentence together(like, that figure is a square circle) it becomes meaningless. All your sentences are like that, you say god is omnipresent then say he is OUTSIDE our realm (you can say outside our realm of thought but that has then nothing to do with omnipresence) or say god is omniscient but “God could not anticipate”.
Only if someone can ANTICIPATE 100% he can be called omniscient. If he CANNOT anticipate he is NOT OMNISCIENT. Omniscience has NOTHING TO DO WITH FREE WILL.
The question is NOT why he can't anticipate but WHETHER HE can anticipate.
I am not questioning your belief in god, but your concept about god. It appears your god is a "superman gone wrong".
And what research did you do to say that god couldn't anticipate or he doesn't need a mechanism or god need to think?
And so far the back up you needed was a dictionary, we didn't discuss anything about archeology, or history. Bible, what has bible got to do with god? I said there is god, not christian god. I also said the christian god,as portrayed, is a selfish, self serving, jealous, arrogant bully, more like the satan.How do you know what can and cannot think? Take the brain, for example. By all outward appearances it's just firing neurons and blood flow changes and chemical happenings. If we didn't each have a mental experience we'd have no idea what was going on in there. For all you know a lightening storm is a form of thought. Or flashes of light in a nebula. We only know of one example of how thought can happen and in what way.
I know this whole omniscient thing is baffling you. God not being a product of this universe does not exist within the time and space dimensions of this universe. So from our perspective God exists in every moment everywhere. He's constant, consistent. Unchanged by time or space. I get what you're saying about existing apart from space/time, in your mind omniscient means He exists everywhere, so how can He only exist outside of something, yet exist everywhere? I get it, but what I'm saying is right. Dimensions are weird, I know.
So God cannot even change moods? I think He clearly does. He changes moods, but still thinks all the same things. If you get mad because someone cut you off on the road, are you now a different person from who you were before you were pissed? Of course not. Part of who you are is a guy who gets pissed when someone cuts them off. You haven't changed, just your mood.
No, God did not know Adam would eat the fruit. Just like God tested Abraham. Unless God created the situation that causes them to have to make a decision, then the decision doesn't exist for God to see. That's why He first had to setup the scenario. To see what they'd do.
I assure everything I've said makes perfect sense. It's different to you and you're clearing overthinking it (ex. God doesn't change, but regretted something when He didn't feel regret before). You're over-complicating it.
You think I'm using words I don't understand. I don't. I'm using every word correctly as defined. I'm sorry you're not getting it, but I assure you it's you and not me.Neuron, flas of light or nebula is NOT NOTHING.
OMNISCIENT MEANS KNOWING EVERYTHING,
OMNIPRESENT MEANS PRESENT EVERYWHERE.
You can put dimension or any word from any dictionary but NONE OF THAT IS THERE IN THE DEFINITION OF omnipresence or omniscient, so TOTALLY IRRELEVANT.
The mood CHANGED, changed means changed not unchanging. I am the same person but my mood changed, if I were "unchanging", my mood wouldn't change and I would face the situation with equanimity.
Then by definition god is NOT OMNISCIENT. Only if God knewbeforehand that Adam was going to eat the fruit he would be omniscient. He might be the one who can make the best educated guess, but it is still a guess only not omniscience. An omniscient person doesn't need to test because he knew it already.
Rather!So changing mood is changing? When you're mood changes you're no longer you? Now you're someone else? Totally different?
The point is the matter in our brains is capable of all the mind does, yet we can't observe it. So for all we know there's all kinds of really fascinating things going on in matter elsewhere that we can't observe in any way. Trees could think for all we know. The point is we don't.
Yes, omniscient means knowing everything. And once free will is a part of reality God knows everything. Therefore omniscient. He knows everything. Everything that is now reality He knows. Not sure why this is so confusing for you. Back to the Future must have blown your mind.Read again what I wrote slowly and carefully till you understand it.
Once you understand that tell me which part of god is "unchanging", body, mind or part of mind?
hint: If I raise my pinky I am still the same but there is a change, change in position.
So now you are denying this "God did not know Adam would eat the fruit."?
did NOT know = NOT omniscient
did know = omniscient.
Only one can be true, either
God did not know Adam would eat the fruit.
OR
God is omniscient.
NOT BOTH.
You decide.
Do you want to use the special pleading that god is omniscient(know future) but not omniscient(didn't know future) because blah...blah ....blah.... I know more than you. ..blah....bblah...blah... ?Look, you're the problem here. Not me. If anyone needs to be reading what who said again slowly and carefully, it's you. The longer you insist on me being the problem, the longer we'll spin our wheels. You can't fix the problem if you don't acknowledge the problem.
There are more components here than what your insistence on black/white is allowing for. Let me try again.
Omniscience is the knowledge of everything. Everything in reality you know. Initially free will was not part of reality. When it wasn't, God had no knowledge of it, because it didn't exist. As soon as God altered reality to also include free will, God knew all about that new reality. He was omniscient in both instances. He knew all about all of reality. Except one reality did not consist of free will and one did. Get it?
God is unchanging. But God has moods like we have moods. Things make him happy and sad and angry. He's still fundamentally the same. Unchanging doesn't mean dead. Of course His mood changes. Of course He feels things. Otherwise, what would be the point. If God was just indifferent to everything?
Let's try another example. Remember when God tested Abraham? Why would He have to test Him if He already knew what He'd do? That's free will. That's the whole point of the whole story. God gave us a truly staggeringly cool gift. Our own minds and our own wills. And He went through a lot of trouble to do it.
Think about this. God didn't know what Abraham would do, even though God can see all time, past and present, all at once, because there did not exist an instances where Abraham had ever had to make that decision. It didn't exist, so God didn't know what Abraham would do. God had to create the situation that would make Abraham have to make a decision. Once Abraham made that decision, the decision then existed. Then, God knows what Abraham did. Get it?Read carefully, omniscient means knowing everything, free will, dimension, space time.... none of it matters [Except one reality did not consist of free will]. There is NO EXCEPT. If god is omniscient he is omniscient regardless of free will or anything. If your god is omniscient god would know Adam would eat the fruit. If he couldn't he was not omniscient. You can say free will, reality or any other nonsense you want but that doesn't change the definition of omniscience. It is EITHER....OR. You cannot say omniscient god didn't foresee, that is nonsense.
So when you used the word "unchanging" you hadn't known its meaning either?
Listen, unchanging means NOT CHANGING. There is no qualification. If you wanted the qualification you should have added that he is unchanging in his body or whatever. You cannot have your cake and eat it too.
ps. A class on English would be good for you, that is, if you are not a priest who is out here to deliberately deceive for a livelihood.This is ridiculous. There is an except. You insist on this black and white concept when there's more going on. There are literally two realities. In each God knows all. God is omniscient in all. Only free will did not exist in the first, Adam did not exist, therefore God did not know. There was nothing to know. There was nothing He didn't know. It's really very simple. Your own brain is getting in the way.
You are so condescending. An english class? Because I didn't know by 'unchanging' you mean unchanging like a rock? That's just a ridiculous way to read that word. That's not me, that's you. You're being ridiculous. So yes, by your completely ridiculous definition, God does change. His mood changes. It's documented all over the bible that His mood changes. Whenever He does anything, that's a change. When He speaks, He's changing. If that's your definition then the word is rendered useless because it only really applies to the inanimate and the dead.Of course, that is called SPECIAL PLEADING.
You may take up the issue with the dictionary makers and the general English speaking public. (But remember you yourself said it is knowing everything).
May I ask what you mean by omniscient? Is it knowing the future when you want only?
"therefore God did not know"
There is no "did not know" in omniscience only know, always, 100% knowledge of the future, not even 99.99999%.
"Only free will did not exist in the first, "
Doesn't matter. 100% knowledge of the future. What you say is "guess".
Again take up the issue with the people I mentioned above.
May I ask what do you mean by "unchanging"?
Does that mean god is "non-aging", perhaps?Holy shit. This has nothing to do with what I want. This has everything to do with common fucking sense. Yes, omniscient is knowing the future. It's knowing 'all'. Future, past, present, everything. In reality (A), everything does not consist of free will or Adam and Eve. God knows all. God is omniscient. In reality (B), everything includes free will and Adam and Eve. God knows all. God is omniscient. By the dictionary, by the speaking public, by any sane person's definition, that is omniscient.
Yes, God is non-aging. God exists in a place where time does not. Time only exists here. Age is irrelevant. It is only relevant here to those of us who exist within time are products of this universe. God is not a product of this universe. God does not exist within time. Or space. Therefore, from our perspective, God exists exactly the same, unchanged by time, in every moment, everywhere.Exactly, YOU WANT doesn't make it so. It's your want that is speaking, it's your want that is using the special pleading, it's your want that make you contradict yourself and prevent you from seeing it.
So god knew Adam was going to eat the fruit.
Remember there is no free will in the definition of omniscience. It is common sense.
Unchanged by time is not "unchanging", it's 'unaging!!' may be or ageless.
Is that what you mean by 'unchanging'?Unchanged by time IS unchanging. Time is required for change to happen. That's what change is. Something is something else in one moment than it was in the other.
What I want is irrelevant. These are the facts of the case. When Adam did not exist, free will did not exist, God did not know these things, because there was nothing to know. They didn't exist. If God had anything better than a guess as to what Adam would do, then Adam would not have free will. It wouldn't be a will apart from God's. Independent. That's the whole thing. That's what's so significant about free will. When we make art, write a song, build something, we're creating something that didn't exist before. Something that is 'of us'. Of our will. It's not 'of God'. What is 'of God' is natural. What is 'of us' is "man-made".
God gave us the gift of making us creators. He gave us our own individual wills that allows us to make things in this universe, to add things to this universe, that are not of God's will, but are of our will. We no longer live harmoniously within nature. We're destroying our environment. We behave more like a virus than we do mammals. We used to be a lot more like mammals. We migrated with the weather changes. Followed the food. Took only what we needed and moved on. We weren't selfish. Then that changed.What is changed by time is "age".
You only mean physical composition change by "unchanging"?
Again, free will is irrelevant. There was everything to know - the future.
God, if omniscient, should know the future, that Adam will exist and he will eat the fruit.
Predicting the future based on the present is guess NOT omniscience.
Rest of what you have written is irrelevant, red herring.Changes happen in time. Without time, there is no change. Like pausing a movie, there's no change because time isn't moving.
Yes, everything to know. The future. In reality 1, the future does not consist of Adam or any decisions He made. God knows all. In reality 2, Adam does exist and does make a decision to eat the fruit. God knows this. God can see the future. The future that includes Adam and his decision. God knows all. God knows what Adam did. God sees everyday and everything that happened in every day.
If you didn't exist, then God wouldn't know anything you'd do if you had. You wouldn't exist in the past, or in the future, so there's nothing to know. God is still omniscient without knowing you because reality doesn't include you. Only when you are part of reality, taking actions and making decisions in each moment of your life, you are part of reality, and God knows each and every thing you did along the way. God knows you because you are part of reality.So when you say god is unchanging, is it like pausing a movie? Remember when you pause a movie nothing changes, the same picture stays there.
Why do you such long winded answers to such simple questions?
1) Did god know Adam was going to eat the fruit, are you saying yes or no?
Your earlier post clearly stated that no, now it seems yes. Is yes the answer?
Remember if you say no, you cannot claim omniscience for god.
If I wouldn't exist, there is nothing for anyone to know about me. But if I would, an omniscient person should know everything about me from my birth to death, including every decision I make. The only condition would be that the omniscient person should be born before me(because it is future we are discussing)No. Seriously. What would be the point if God being 'unchanging' was like pausing a movie? Unchanging in that way is nothing. Doing nothing. God might as well be a boulder. That's completely silly. If God were unchanging in that way then He wouldn't be an active being with a personality. He'd be a stagnant paused picture. An image. Not alive.
I'm sorry I'm long winded. I actually try to actively keep my answers short, believe it or not.
This incistence of yours that everything be black and white is really annoying. I answered your question, but because I elaborated beyond 'no', you're not happy. It's really not that simple of a question. Did God know Adam was going to eat the fruit? No. He suspected it I'm sure. When a scientist places a mouse in a box with two buttons, one that dispenses cheese and another that shocks him, does the scientist know what the mouse is going to do? If the scientist did know already, then why do the experiment? You do the experiment to find out what they'll do, right?
Yes, exactly. God is omniscient. You do exist, therefore God can see you in each and every day of your life. Simultaneously. He knows everything about you. How long you live, everything you do, the first and last words you'll speak, everything. Because you exist, because you are part of reality, God knows. When Adam existed then God knew. God knew because God could see the day Adam made the decision. And everyday before and after that. But before Adam existed, God did not know. That's why you do the experiment. That's why you setup the environment with the tree and place the specimen in it. If you know, why bother?You gave that example. So god is not "unchanging"? Or, in which way he is "unchanging" then?
We don't call the scientists omniscient, do we?
Omniscient person doesn't "suspect", he knows EXACTLY what is going to happen.
You elaborate and end up with an exactly opposite one you started with that is why I am asking you again and again.
This is black and white
omniscience - knowing everything. Not suspecting nor expecting it is knowing, K N O W I N G E V E R Y T H I N G. There is NO 'reality A, B, C or D' nor free will in that.You said 1) god didn't know Adam is going to eat (that is god is not omniscient)
2)Then you said god is omniscient and know every decision Adam would take (so it neans god knew Adam would eat the fruit).
[1 and 2 are opposite, contradictory, cannot be true at the same time. That is you are contradicting yourself; your comment is meaningless]
Then you said god would know everything I do, so is adam an exception?
Say, god is omniscient and the time before creation, god would know that he would create Adam, he would plant the tree and god also WOULD KNOW THAT Adam would eat the fruit.
