To a being outside of time who can see into time i would think all time should be known. And if not how could God make any prophecies. Don't the biblical prophecies show that its God knows all effects?

But if free will action A has not been made, then it does not exist inside or outside of time. So even a being outside of time would not "see" it, because it does not exist.

In order for God to make prophecies he has to know future actions that have not happened and do not exist.

Your way off, mainly because you are making this post based on your false information and beliefs about God.

I am too busy right now to address this but I will in the near future......

May I just duck in ever so quickly with a tiny thought: plenty of mundane things that absolutely do exist are very problematic when held up to philosophical scrutiny, therefore I find it very interesting that some people choose to base their belief/non-belief of metaphysical concepts on how problematic they become when held up to philosophical scrutiny.

Surely, a being equivelent with God can exist and still be very problematic when scrutinised philosophically? As in, philosophical debates regarding the existence of God and high-lighting problems and what-ifs should not necessarily have any bearing on an individual's beliefs because things which blatantly do exist in everyday life can also be very problematic when held up to rigorous philosophical debate, and we all "believe" in them.

Did that make any sense?





H

lolol...such lack of edge you kay shun....man-made book = truth

I think Zugz is actually quoting me, I have said that so many times on this forum.

If Zugz actually believed this I would be thankful to know that someone else believes this also on this forum...

What does crushing a beer can on your forehead mean to you?

OP,

Basically your post's error is the assumption that your understanding of God's sovereignty (control) and its relation to free will (and what that is) is comprehensive (accurate to an omniscient extent).

If God exists, by definition His understanding far exceeds yours in breadth and depth. It is far more likely, almost infinitely, that you lack understanding vs. God being an idiot. Afterall, you're one of a trillion x trillion x... beings created. He is THE Creator.

I don't assume to know how God works (if there be one) but I insist on putting critical thought and logic above archaic writ and tradition when discussing issues and concepts. In short I don't understand why there is this unrealistic expectation of perfection, particularly when God could easily destroy Satan, or better yet not made Lucifer in the first place. Obviously 'who are you to judge something ions beyond comprehension' is the default answer but in that case I could shoot you and say 'what? it's God's divine plan apparently, don't blame me!' ... obviously I tend to approach matters in the method of the former.

This is fine, but the error you are making is that you have incomplete information, particularly in the situation where God exists. A thousand years ago, the conclusion that the speed of light was infinite was a perfectly reasonable and logical result of critical thought given that there was no counter information. That did not make it correct.

Intelligence can enable very impressive reasoning, but if the input is incomplete or distorted then the result will be erroneous regardless of the quality of the thought process. Garbage in, garbage out as the old saying goes. It requires something more, (wisdom maybe?) to recognize the limitations inherent in your perspective and to avoid overconfidence in the results of your analysis in those circumstances.

Wait wait, so your argument is "because there's these things that definitely do exist but don't hold up well to philisophical scrutiny, we can't have our thoughts on god influenced by the fact that his existence doesn't make much sense?"

First, please point out what these mundane things that are philosophically difficult to scrutinize are.
Second, you do realize that comparing mundane things that I can see with my eyes and a supreme being whose fabrication is way easier to explain than his actual existence is an error in logic?
I, along with nearly every other atheist out there, are not atheists just because the concept of god(s) is difficult to philosophically justify, but because the evidence for one side is really strong while the evidence for the other is nearly nonexistent.

Could you please share some of this evidence with us all? I have yet to see any compelling evidence for atheism.

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

Here is the best evidence for God,

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

we seem to be at a stand still. Now maybe you would like to point to something specific.

If we represent the paradigms with an R and a S, hasn't their progress over the last couple hundred years been like this:

_
R

S-------->>>>>>>

no. you seem to have a grave misunderstanding of what we are even dealing with.

The fact that there are billions of other galaxies in the universe should be enough in itself to convince you that the universe doesn't exist solely for humans. Alas, your ego trudges on.

lol, you have failed so many times in your attempts to prove that this is even the least bit rational, let alone significant.

If you replied to any of my argument against you instead of ignoring them and hiding maybe we could get somewhere.

My argument was that the process and outcome of philosophical inquiry and debate will never have any bearing on whether or not a thing actually exists. The two are mutually exclusive and have no relationship. I'm sure you are intelligent enough not to disagree with me. The issue of what you allow to influence your thoughts in the absence of established proof is a seperate one, and is entirely each individual's choice.

Not if you take it in the context I presented it in my first post it isn't, no. If you represent it differently in the much broader manner you just have, then I can see how it might be. Also, the easiest explanation for a thing is not always the correct one, how easy or hard something is to explain again has no bearing on how that thing might actually operate in reality.



Things of this nature are way too grey and murky for me to accept your last sentence, which seems very cut and dry. There is no evidence on either side, hence entire debating forums like this one full of people typing their perspectives on the matter. You will never be able to present me with a single shred of evidence proving or even suggesting that God or a god does not and cannot exist, just as I will never be able to present you with a shred of evidence to the contrary. All we have in the absence of said evidence are the perspectives of individuals and groups of people, which as I have already said, have no direct bearing whatsoever on whatever the truth may actually be.



H

This observation appears to having no bearing on the reason for creation of the universe. If you could show that those billions of galaxies were populated with intelligent life, then you might have a point. Of course, one could simply extend the definition of "human" to include other sentient species and you would be back at the starting point. Ego doesn't even begin to enter into this.

As I have said before, I do not respond to you and certain others because you clearly have nothing be contempt for me. I have no desire to discuss anything with people that just want to insult me. If you don't like me or my beliefs that is fine. If you want to continue to post insult after insult at me, that is fine. But don't expect me to respond as I have no time for that.

Well, if you read my post you know I do agree with this. However, the point is completely irrevelent, since, as I pointed out, very few atheists are atheists because philosophic arguments alone have led them there. We believe in the scientific process of hypothesis and observation.



Yeah, screw occam's razor.



So you view science as a "perspective?"

So do I. That wasn't the point I was trying to make. You have crossed over into a different area and we're now arguing the toss over something quite unrelated. On top of that there is no need for the "we", I'm not launching an attack against atheists, as far as I am concerned philosophical debate has just as little bearing on the truth regardless of the beliefs or lack thereof of the people engaging in it.


I've actually never been a fan of occam's razor, it always seemed lazy to me. The simplest and most direct explanation is often the correct one, but far from always. Life is too complex to just shrug your shoulders and say "Occam's Razor". Plenty of prominent philosophers didn't like it either. And for what it's worth, Occam himself was a believer in God.

Science has no bearing on whether or not God exists, therefore all we have in its absence are perspectives. This is actually what I said. I vehemently disagree with Dawkins' assertion that the existence of God is a scientifically testable hypothesis.



H