Another religious argument on /his/

>>2325597
>Leveticus 1:9
>Its entrails, however, and its legs he shall wash with water. And the priest shall offer up in smoke all of it on the altar for a burnt offering, an offering by fire of a soothing aroma to the LORD

>liking the smell of barbeque means you like the smell of death

>>2325622
Hosea 6:6 New International Version (NIV)

6 For I desire mercy, not sacrifice,
and acknowledgment of God rather than burnt offerings.

(Continued)

- God is aware of all aspects of His creation and perfectly comprehends all consequences thereof.
- God is omnipotent and, being all powerful, could have arranged His creation differently with no unintended side effects.
∴ God intended for His creation to be this way.

However, there's a problem that springs from this. If God intended for His universe to be the way it is, fully aware of the conditions set and fully capable of changing them, but souls will still end up eternally damned, it can only be concluded that God intended for those souls to be there in the first place. We can gather one of three things from this:

1) God didn't know that these souls would end up in Hell regardless of their thoughts and actions, is therefore non omniscient and, by extension, not a god.

2) God did know that these souls would end up there regardless of their life choices and cannot stop it, therefore is not omnipotent, and is by extension not a god.

3) God is both aware of and capable of changing the unjust fates of these souls and refuses to change them, making Him malevolent.

None of these are satisfactory conclusions given the repeated assertion that God is just, all-knowing, and all-powerful. The dude literally creates people so that they can suffer a disproportionate and excruciating punishment for all eternity for decisions they made without full knowledge or context by his own will in a very short period of time. It's fucked up.

(Continued)

- God is aware of all aspects of His creation and perfectly comprehends all consequences thereof.
- God is omnipotent and, being all powerful, could have arranged His creation differently with no unintended side effects.
∴ God intended for His creation to be this way.

However, there's a problem that springs from this. If God intended for His universe to be the way it is, fully aware of the conditions set and fully capable of changing them, but souls will still end up eternally damned, it can only be concluded that God intended for those souls to be there in the first place. We can gather one of three things from this:

1) God didn't know that these souls would end up in Hell regardless of their thoughts and actions, is therefore non omniscient and, by extension, not a god.

2) God did know that these souls would end up there regardless of their life choices and cannot stop it, therefore is not omnipotent, and is by extension not a god.

3) God is both aware of and capable of changing the unjust fates of these souls and refuses to change them, making Him malevolent.

None of these are satisfactory conclusions given the repeated assertion that God is just, all-knowing, and all-powerful. The dude literally creates people so that they can suffer a disproportionate and excruciating punishment for all eternity for decisions they made without full knowledge or context by his own will in a very short period of time.

>>2325647
>>2325648
Life is a maze and your soul is a mouse.

>>2325597
Who is God jealous of?

>>2325661
Exodus 34:14 KJV: For thou shalt worship no other god: for the Lord, whose name is Jealous, is a jealous God.

>>2325666
If there are no other Gods than the Christian God, then where's the logic in being a jealous God?

>>2325666
He doesn't like it when you separate yourself for all the stuff that was made for you.

>>2325669
There are other Gods.

>>2325682
From the perspective of a Christian?

>>2325685
Yeah

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wmOEiKoHYdU

>>2325692
Christianity is so fucking inconsistent. It's literally just made up as it's followers go along and is ripped off other religions and philosophy. It may as well be officially secular.

>>2325597
>>2325647
The bible says God chose who to damn and who to save. Romans 9:18-23

>>2325701
Like how Judiasm is kinda?

>>2325713
Abrehamic religions are all essentially the same ideology.

>>2325711

>18 Therefore hath he mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will he hardeneth. 19 Thou wilt say then unto me, Why doth he yet find fault? For who hath resisted his will? 20 Nay but, O man, who art thou that repliest against God? Shall the thing formed say to him that formed it, Why hast thou made me thus? 21 Hath not the potter power over the clay, of the same lump to make one vessel unto honour, and another unto dishonour? 22 What if God, willing to shew his wrath, and to make his power known, endured with much longsuffering the vessels of wrath fitted to destruction: 23 And that he might make known the riches of his glory on the vessels of mercy, which he had afore prepared unto glory,

What I'm getting from this is that not only did God pick in advance who is saved and damned but that it's also an indignation to question the justice of that behavior.

>>2325648
lol denying free will is way worse than spending some eternity in hell

>>2325597
>I-if he can do it I should be able to as well!!!

When will people realize God isn't subject to any laws and rules since he IS those rules and we're to follow those rules. Unless you wanna suffer eternally if that's your thing.

>John 8:32 Then you will know the truth, and the truth will set you free.
there's your freewill.

>>2325754
gee i dunno maybe the moment he provides physical proof for his existence instead of going through muh faith jump through hoops to show ur devotion for me peons!!! testing where billions die just for the sake of a sadistic deity's fucking quiz show where if you give the wrong answer you burn forever

>>2325767
Dunno mate, the quiz you're referring to is quite easy if you ask me. Just pick up a bible once in a while and you should be fine by and large.

>>2325754
Sounds pretty cruel, even if there's no justifiable way for me to judge Him.

These arguments always ignore the finest point of being an omniscient entity, and that is that knowing everything necessarily includes knowing what it is like to be an intelligent entity in the universe you create and having something horrible happen to you. You get to experience that at a high resolution than the actual person who is suffering is.

There is must be some really fucking good reason to subject yourself to that.

>>2325597
>>2325647
Before I address your main point, let me clarify some things.

1. "Creationism" as you put it, is the only correct, historical and biblical way of understanding our origins. The world is approximately 6000 years old and was made spontaneously. The evolutionism myth is incompatible with the Christian worldview.

2. Eternal damnation and universalism are not the only views of hell. There are conditionalists that believe hell is where you are destroyed. You simply cease to exist after a temporary pain for the punishment of your sins. Despite the traditional view of eternal punishment being the most widely-held belief, there is infact more biblical support for conditionalism/annihiliationism than there is for the platonic view of hell.

God being omnipotent and omniscient does not contradict our free will.

You can record a game of football and then watch it with your friend. You already know the outcome but you had no influence on the game whatsoever.

The only real issue here is what is known as "the problem of evil". It basically goes like this:
>If God is perfect and holy, why allow evil in the first place?
and has been answered many times.

The first answer is Free Will. We decided to rebel, we face the consequences of our rebellion and separation from God. We are responsible for evil.

God could have made us automatons, zombies, robots incapable of doing evil. But our life would be meaningless. God wants genuine love, not a preprogammed being following orders.

You would want a genuine real puppy, not a toy puppy that makes noise when you push a button.

>>2325977
And the final argument against the "problem of evil" is the movie argument. Basically it goes like this:
>Movie A
Meet John. John has a good wife, children and a well-paying job. He lives a succesful and happy life. The end.
>Movie B
Meet John. John has had a tough childhood. He is poor and surrounded by criminals, but he manages to better himself. He goes to school, gets a good job and becomes a succesful businessman with a loving wife and 2 children.

What movie would you watch? Which is more interesting? There is a reason why almost every single movie is a rollercoaster of emotions. Things go bad but it turns out good in the end. We like being on the edge of our seat and wondering what will happen. If nothing happens, it's a boring movie.

Life and the cosmos is a grand movie, the greatest story ever told. God is the author, and we will have all the answers in the end. Infact, God already gave us the why, what and when. It's called the Bible.

As
>>2325956
said, God knows what He is doing. He is perfect and holy. There is a reason for everything. Just because you don't understand God, does not mean there is something wrong with Him. Sin will not go unpunished, neither will your works go unrewarded.

>>2325956
Well spoken, I hadn't considered that.

>>2325977
>world is approximately 6000 years old and was made spontaneously. The evolutionism myth is incompatible with the Christian worldview.
Why do this?
You lose 95% of your readers opening with that statement that they have observational evidence is false.
Why must the entirety of your faith rest on this one pillar?
The universe could have started at the moment of your birth as far as you know, and some observation you have made has lead you to believe everything is 6,000 years old?
Explain the light from the stars that are farther away than that. How did that get here?
Did he create it mid flight?
Is your God one that must create work-arounds like this?
Why ignore the evidence one thing you are sure that God created, the universe we live in?

>>2325977

I still find that free will conflicts with omniscience and omnipotence. The problem with your football game example is that God is the reason for the football game. He decided on the rules, chose the players, built the stadium, arranged the weather, and arranged every blade of grass in the stadium. He wrote every play and trained every player. As all events are consequences and results of other events and God is responsible for all starting conditions and aware of the influences and conclusions, he cannot be counted as independent from it.

File: Cult.jpg (100KB, 364x348px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 364x348px

>>2326073
>observational evidence
Show me them? All these years and all I see is the theory of evolution being debunked over and over again. It is unscientific and the way atheists defend this theory hinges on irrationality and cult behavior. Shouting "evolution is fact!" does not make it so. You need to have proof. Since you won't provide articles or sources for your claims, let me do show a fraction of mine. Maybe you will do your own research instead of blindly believing what you've been told.

http://www.newgeology.us/presentation32.html
https://www.trueorigin.org/spetner1.php
https://www.trueorigin.org/creatheory.php
https://www.trueorigin.org/isakrbtl.php
http://www.evidentcreation.com/TRM-Logerr.html
http://www.bible.ca/archeology/bible-archeology.htm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jMr278CMAIA
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FvzMIJla28g
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=shyI-aQaXD0
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Gjvuwne0RrE
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TJ-3fP4H8Ss

>Why must the entirety of your faith rest on this one pillar?
Because Genesis is the foundation of the Bible. If you cut it out or distort the reality of historical beginnings, you are mutilating the meaning behind Christ's sacrifice on the cross aswell.

>>2326088
That doesn't make any sense. The workers and constructors behind stadium and grass field are not responsible for the score of every football game.

God gave us a choice, we make the decisions.
God simply knows before hand what our decisions will be.

>>2326088
You are right, from an omnipotent point of view, all of it seems like it would get incredibly boring after a while. If only there was someway you could, as God, get in there and play yourself.
Maybe you could constrain yourself somehow. Give yourself a body and limited perspective so you don't just trounce everyone instantly.

>>2325597

You are conflating foreknowledge with predestination because you are underestimating the ability of God to know the end from the beginning.

Everything in your life, God knew from before he created the world. Everything.

He did not predestine you for any of it.

He made your eternal resting place in accordance with it, during the creation week, and continues to work on the New Jersusalem.

>>2326073

The evidence is the evidence. Your worldview believes that stratified rock is millions of years worth of accumulated crusts on the earth.

Without any holes in any of them.

With petrified trees literally standing among 20 or 30 of them.

Mine believes it is the result of a global flood 4600 years ago.

>>2326119
>Maybe you will do your own research instead of blindly believing what you've been told
You are not a Christian.
Stop calling yourself that.
You hold that title as an one holds an ideology. Like a fascist or a communist would.
This is not what Christ intended, and I pray that one day you will see that.

File: hoaxes.jpg (166KB, 712x664px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 712x664px

>>2326123
>get in there and play yourself
>Give yourself a body and limited perspective

And that's where Yeshua comes in.
100% Man (feels like we do, same life and toils we have)
100% Divine (sinless, never stolen or told a lie)

>>2326142
>If you believe in the Bible you are not a Christian
k

>>2326142

He says he's a Christian, and he posts things only Christians can know.

So you lack discernment, friend, and should leave matters regarding spiritual discernment to those better equipped for it.

You are most likely a Catholic.

>>2326123
>Give yourself a body and limited perspective so you don't just trounce everyone instantly.

We have seen God do just this in the bible.

>>2326155
You'll make it one day friend. I don't know what horrible thing has to happen to you to make you realise how fucking wrong you are, but, by the grace of God, it will happen.

>>2326088

Why do you so desperately argue against your own personal responsibility?

Do you have something to hide before a holy God?

Because if so, we have some very good news for you!

>>2326167

I would seriously worry about you if I were you, not him.

File: Is Evolution Good For Science.jpg (63KB, 654x354px) Image search: [Google]

63KB, 654x354px

>>2326167
>makes a claim
>doesn't provide proof or evidence

You're acting like a child shouting "YOU'RE WRONG I'M RIGHT, LALALALA CAN'T HEAR YOU!"

Atheists/evolutionists in their natural environment, complete ignorance and irrationality.

>>2326175
They are the same, anon.

>>2326197

Prove it.

>>2325648

This is really quite simple.

God is not going to force anyone to believe in him, to love him, or to choose to be in his Kingdom.

That leaves love as the highest ideal in this universe, one where God knew the costs and benefits going forward, and went forward anyways.

Your job is to be a benefit, and not a cost.

And whichever you become, God knew from before time.

Get a bigger God. Then enlarge it infinitely in an infinite number of ways. Then find out that that God actually loves you enough to die for you.

>>2325669

Not wanting your creation to be deceived by demons into spending eternity in hell with them, obviously.

>>2326208
That concern for my fellow man is beneficial to me?
That I am an intelligence operating on roughly the same goal structure, observing the same thing that he is?
Or that I from the same God that created him?
I can provide evidence for the first two.

>>2326179
You are arguing to win the argument rather than to understand.
The two are not the same.

>>2326236
The theory of evolution.
Prove it.

Keep in mind that "evolution" has like 6 meanings:

Cosmic evolution: the origin of time, space, and matter from nothing in the “big bang”
Chemical evolution: all elements “evolved” from hydrogen
Stellar evolution: stars and planets formed from gas clouds
Organic evolution: life begins from inanimate matter
Macro-evolution: animals and plants change from one type into another
Micro-evolution: variations form within the “kind”

The first 5 are purely religious and speculative. Only the last one is scientific and has been observed. No one disputes that.

Let me guess, you're a 'Christian' that got brainwashed into the Darwinian paradigm. Afraid of being laughed or mocked, you got rid of the traditional, factual, biblical view of Genesis that people held for centuries and pretended that Christianity is perfectly feasible with Flintstone monkey myths and "millions of years".

You are what we call, a compromised, lukewarm, carnal, worldly Christian.
A Christian that is afraid of being a Christian. A Christian that doesn't really believe in the Bible, but likes the culture.

If you're gonna LARP, might aswell convert to Roman Catholicism. It's all about role-playing in there. The pope said aliens exist, evolution is real, atheists can go to heaven and muslims are our friends.

>>2326236
You just proved they were not the same Anon, despite your previous post.

>>2326225

I did. Then I also found out that anonymous loudmouths like you don't speak for God.

>>2326282

Amen.

Plus, the RCC looks very kindly on Darwinian evolution. So he'll feel right at home.

>>2326308

He has actually authorized us to speak for him, and to him.

I don't know what you mean by "I did."

Care to elaborate?

>>2326308
Everyone speaks for God and who Evers loudest wins.

>>2326282
Your first mistake is that you consider yourself a wise man.

Do you think those other humans who made those observations, who God has granted with senses as good or better than yours, just pulled them out of thin air and now believe them with the conviction they do out of hatred of our God?
That is absurd. Even if they aren't completely correct because they are starting with 'There is no God' as an axiom, you think that everything they see is just hogwash?
You need to reconsider what you are doing before it is to late. You seek to divide instead of unite, as your rhetoric here demonstrates.

>>2326333
No, the doctrines of demons comes from demons.

>>2326317

And who is 'he'? A fallen, fallible man? Or almighty God, the Creator of the universe?

It's your word against his. That's why I always laugh when a "Christian" gets all judgemental at me. It reminds me of this verse:

>So when they continued asking Him, He lifted Himself up and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

So, who should I believe? The Word of God, or the word of some anonymous twerp who sees Christianity as nothing more than a stick to beat others with?

>>2326382
Maybe you're confusing several posters with each other.

Or maybe you need professional help.

Matthew 28 (The Great Commission)

And Jesus came and spoke to them, saying, “All authority has been given to Me in heaven and on earth. Go therefore and make disciples of all the nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, teaching them to observe all things that I have commanded you; and lo, I am with you always, even to the end of the age.” Amen.

>>2326382
>who sees Christianity as nothing more than a stick to beat others with?
This may be the most valuable idea in this thread for those seeking actually Christianity.

>>2326382
>>So when they continued asking Him, He lifted Himself up and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

By the way, that was Jesus' way out of a trap the pharisees had set for him.

Setting traps is the way of the devil, not the way of the Lord.

Jesus was telling those men that even though the Law of Moses condemned the adulteress to death, that their hands were dirty and they lacked the righteousness to carry out the death sentence.

Then he, who had such righteousness, forgave her with an admonition to stop committing adultery.

Jesus never told us not to judge anything; that's a common misconception the godless promote to insulate themselves from the conviction of the Holy Spirit.

1 Corinthians 6:3 Do you not know that we shall judge angels? How much more, things that pertain to this life?

I cannot tell you if you're going to make it to heaven or not; that's the judging Jesus reserves for himself and tells us not to do.

I can tell you where you're headed, right now, by your own testimony, if that is revealed, but not where you will end up, for sure, on Judgment Day.

>>2326415
That the Word of God is a stick?

No, it is the sharpest sword in the universe, capable of cutting between soul and spirit.

>>2326406

>Or maybe you need professional help.

>So when they continued asking Him, He lifted Himself up and said unto them, “He that is without sin among you, let him first cast a stone at her.”

So, once again, it's your word, a fallible man, against that of God. Who should I believe?

Excuse me if I sound a bit skeptical, but you sound awfully judgemental and petty for a Christian. You also constantly call people names. Now, ask yourself, would you like that if people did that to you?

>>2326429
>Missed the point completely.
Try again. You'll figure it out, I'm sure.

Thus saith the internet.
>The word of God is not a big truck. It's not something you can just dump on people. It is a series of tubes and those tubes can be filled with bullshit and then the word of God becomes delayed.
Amen.

>>2326423

>Setting traps is the way of the devil, not the way of the Lord
>quoting a Bible verse is Satanic

Are you sure you're a Christian? Because you sound nothing like one. In fact, you sound like the exact opposite of what Jesus tells me his followers should behave like.

When I read the Gospels, I get from it that I should be humble, reserve judgement, and above all treat others the way I'd want to be treated. Then I look at you, someone who constantly judges others, probably based on things you probably do wrong yourself, someone who constantly calls others names (you seem particularly fond of accusing others of having various mental illnesses, I'm not really sure why that's supposed to be "funny" or invalidate anything anyone says, you should have extra respect for those afflicted by such a disorder), and constantly calling for others to be saved, which makes me wonder who really needs to be saved? Might you the one who's in seriously need of the Word of God? Because for a Christian, you sound really hateful and angry.

Please do me a favor and actually read the Bible. Look at what it says and first look at yourself and your own behavior before you start judging others. You'll find that it does wonders for your anger and spite. I know it did in my case

>>2325597
All of the problems of the Christian faith go away with simulationist dualism. Including the problem of evil.
There is a requirement though, which is to acknowledge that you are not important and that you are not the center of the creation. There might be no purpose or goal, and there might not be a reward. There might not even be an existence after life. God might not be all over your ass watching what you do.
This non-individualistic concept is a common theme in Budhism, and it should also be familiar to Christians since humility is preached in the scriptures. However westerners just dislike the idea and indulge in the "I" too much.

>>2326228
Why does demon deception and torture even have to be an option?

>That doesn't make any sense. The workers and constructors behind stadium and grass field are not responsible for the score of every football game.

God isn't responsible for some factors though, He's responsible for all factors. The brain chemistry of every player. The direction of the wind. Any and all factors involved in the performance of the game, even centuries upon centuries prior to the game, can be attributed to God in some way. Every event is a consequence or result of another event, which will conveniently trace its way up the ladder to the omniscient and omnipotent God given the Biblical model. There are no factors out of His control, so the outcome can be attributed directly to Him.

>You are conflating foreknowledge with predestination because you are underestimating the ability of God to know the end from the beginning.

God is omniscient, no? Assumptions are required to state that He does not know or chooses not to know.

>Everything in your life, God knew from before he created the world. Everything. He did not predestine you for any of it.

Creating someone with complete knowledge of how their life will play out and intending for the circumstances in said life to happen due to your capacity to change them but lack of effort to isn't predestination?

>>2326665

Sorry, but how do you know this? Are you God?

>>2326679

I am not God, but it can be implied that God has a hand in the state of everything.

If there was nothing before God created it and God created everything, God had a hand in all of creation.

>>2326742

>I am not God, but it can be implied that God has a hand in the state of everything

Yes, but it's implied by you, a fallible man. Wouldn't it be better to reserve judgement about things we can't know?

>>2326765

I'll supplement this with quotes then.

Isaiah 45:7 - I form the light, and create darkness: I make peace, and create evil: I the LORD do all these [things].

Proverbs 16:4 - The Lord has made all things from himself; yea, even the wicked for the day of evil.

>>2326873

Again, quotes provided by a fallible, fallen man. A sinner. Your opinions don't mean anything to me. You're not God

File: 1f6352964dded80258447628f81db5e9b16d195b8b6f44c8a9e7df6a62914b52.jpg (52KB, 625x304px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 625x304px

>>2325597
>dat pic
Hey now, Darth Vader never destroyed a planet in the movie cannon, he was a mere lackey in regards to that act, and it was Governor Tarkin who chose the target and gave the final order. He's also a lacky in regards to world(s) domination goal. I can't recall him killing any animals, save in self defense. It's also a bit of a stretch to call hunting down members of the Jedi cult or a random tribe of sand people "genocide".

Okay, the killing children thing you may have him on, even if he hadn't yet taken up the name.

Really, aside from that last pre-Vader bit, as bad guys go, he doesn't do much besides be intimidating and off a commanding officer or three. (Granted, I've not bothered seeing Rogue One yet - but those looked like the acts of a super-soldier at war, rather than murder.)

>Sauron - Peeping Tom - icwutudidthere

>>2326884

So, by way of my fallibility, there is no case I can make as I am automatically disqualified ad hominem regardless of the content?

>>2326952

Yep. You're not God.

File: ARISTOTLEAQUINAS.jpg (314KB, 600x600px) Image search: [Google]

314KB, 600x600px

>>2325647
>is therefore non omniscient and, by extension, not a god.
>is not omnipotent, and is by extension not a god.
Omniscience isn't a requisite to be a god - nor is omnipotence. Most gods are not omniscient nor omnipotent, and the stories surrounding them often demonstrate this fact repeatedly. Granted, one could easily argue that the stories in the Bible itself prove that Yahweh is not omniscient nor omnipotent, and the titles "all knowing and all powerful" are just what they are for any other high-deity: titles. Rising them to literal attributes seems a bit revisionist, when the only canonical tales of him have him repeatedly expressing both surprise and regret.

Some of the more liberal churches deal with this dilemma by stating that the way God gives us free will is by blinding himself to our decisions and their results. When you're both omnipotent and omniscient, you can do this - choose to forgo some aspect of your omniscience. It also stinks of revisionism, but from a logic point of view, it kind of works.

Then again, it's also easy to make the argument that faith trumps logic, and thus any paradox that arises from the nature of God is a non-issue. That's a dangerous route, but certainly not an uncommon one, particularly in modern times. ...Indeed, it seems one more common today than in the Church's youth, where debates as to the nature of God and its internal logic were commonplace among the religious hierarchy, whereas now, among that same authority, questioning the nature of God seems more apt to bring accusations of ignorance or heresy than ever - even if it's considerably less likely to get you killed.

>>2325980
God would be the one who decided humans would find conflict and suffering interesting though, and a lack of them boring. He could have chosen not to make humans require these elements in their lives to be interested and entertained and satisfied, yet he chose to inflict unnecessary pain on his innocent creations. Why?

>>2325597

Just because you think god can or should do something does not mean god did or does so.
The fact god can see into the future of all things does not mean he actually does.
Since this god is the creator, him not seeing into the future meanign the universe itself is one in which the future is unknown. The universe is dictated by god's actions. An action of god means a universe in which such an action is to be carried out by him. If god does not carry out an action then that means the universe is one in which is not built for such an action to take place in it.
I hope im getting this through. God's actual action or non action determine the ACTUAL, not the POSSIBLE, state of reality.
I wont even mention that an all powerful god can create a universe in which both free will and omniscience are possible at the same time.
How? I dont know, im not an all powerful being.

As far as evil in the bible, well reality includes both godo and evil, struggle and love and death.
Why should it not be in the bible? If the bible is a guide or rule book or both and then some, should it not include in it stories that would deal with all of life's realities?
It would seem that evil and good would always exist no matter how friendly and happy we as a society will be because good and evil are relative. In a society that has no killers the ultimate evil would be thievery. In a society without thieves perhaps bullies? etc..
There is always a spectrum of good and bad we are just pogressing towards and overall less violent world.

>>2327034
If we could sit and be happy, we would sit. We can't, so now we must act.
What is the more interesting creation, a statue of an engine, or a functional one?

>>2325980
>>2327034
I've always liked that explanation, though it leads immediately to this:
https://i.4cdn.org/wsg/1486417664144.webm

>>2327067
>What is the more interesting creation, a statue of an engine, or a functional one?
Being omnipotent, which is more interesting is totally up to God. He is the one who determines which one humans and himself will find more interesting, and could reverse his decision whenever he likes, or he's not omnipotent.

>>2327067
NTG, but the one of the problems with that idea (and there are many >>2327071) is that to find something "interesting" is kind impossible, for any being who is absolutely omniscient, regardless of how complex the creation. If there is some limit to the being's omniscience, it might be a viable position, but if said being is absolutely all knowing, a single pebble is no more surprising or interesting than the entirety of creation.

Granted, it may simply be, as so many have stated, that God is simply unknowable, and his motives entirely mysterious to us. That does rather suggest that the being depicted in the Bible is highly anthropomorphized, and thus the work is fundamentally flawed, however divinely inspired it maybe.

>>2327090
Imagine the system that would be created from having intelligences value the static statue over the moving engine.
A universe than can choose to act, but decides not to?
Why would anyone create that?

>>2327103
>>2327104
Again, to a completely omniscient being, completely aware of anything a universe may do, regardless of its complexity, there's no difference in predictability of a static or dynamic system. You can't grant motivation for creation to such a being in either case - or at the very least, you can't chalk it up to one model being more interesting than the other - it's the same difference to such a Laplace demon.

>>2327111
Perhaps I should have said useful to God's goals rather than interesting then.
Perhaps I equate the two for some reason.

>>2327060
This.

>>2327122
That would assume one could comprehend the goals of an omniscient being, that being the problem - such a being is incomprehensible.

This is why I prefer the classical model of dieties, where they are just really fucking wise and really fucking powerful, rather than absolutely both. At least then you can comprehend motives. Anything that's all of both is just an unknowable force of nature, and any motivations you do associate with it are entirely nonsensical and inevitably derived from one's self due to the impossibility or reference.

I suppose there are dieties that work okay that way (like the Hindu concept of Brahma, where the personable gods are merely partial aspects of said incomprehensible totality), but Yahweh is supposed to be a highly interactive and personable deity, so granting him aspects that makes that impossible seems to be a contradictory effort to simply solidify his bad-assery. Then again, I suppose that's part of why you end up with such things as the Trinity and Jesus, and Mary worship.

>>2327170
We do have a reference though.
If we begin with the axiom that we live in a universe that adheres to his will, and we can make observations about the things that work well in this universe and the things that do not. That allows us some form of a glimpse, does it not?

>>2325597
>le omniscience negates free will meme
Literally every time.

>>2327183
>and we can
then we can*

>>2327183
%99.999999 (followed by a lot more 9's) of this universe is absolutely hostile to life as we know it. I mean, if you're going to use the nature of creation as evidence of this being's motives, then we should all off ourselves right quick, as clearly we're some sort of anomalous mistake out of alignment with the rest of creation.

Yes, a tad facetious, but in the end, you can justify anything by pointing to the apparent nature of the universe.

Life strives to spread and survive by its own mechanisms. It's thus perfectly natural to make spread and survival an axiom (insomuch as any axiom can be declared "natural"), but that doesn't require the presence of a deity to encourage, as all evidence suggests that's what life's been doing since long before we came upon the scene, and if anything, we're just the latest and greatest continuance of that effort.

It seems, if you want to have a deity as a guide post, you'd want one that had motivations that one could comprehend, beyond those that are naturally apparent.

>>2327034
The point is that with this grand "movie" called life, God is proving several things:

1. He is proving Satan/Lucifer wrong.
2. He is showing the consequences of rebellion.
3. He is showing what life without God looks like.

When the eternal state arrives, people in heaven will rejoice and worship God because they will understand the movie has ended and what the purpose of everything was.

>>2327103
The purpose of this movie is not for Him finding it "interesting". It is for us, His creation. We are here to experience and to understand.

The on-lookers and watchers are angels (both holy and fallen).

Have you ever seen The Truman Show? If you ignore the Gnostic elements, it is a reflection of reality.

The guy running the show = God
Truman = Adam/Mankind
The woman = Satan who gives Adam "enlightenment"
The people outside the dome that watch the show = angels

>>2327219
>I mean, if you're going to use the nature of creation as evidence of this being's motives, then we should all off ourselves right quick, as clearly we're some sort of anomalous mistake out of alignment with the rest of creation.

How on earth does that follow?
The vast majority of the surface and interior of a single seater airplane are incapable of containing or supporting a person but that doesn't make the cockpit "an anomalous mistake out of line" with the rest of the airplane. It means that all the other parts exist so that one single seat can be occupied by a person who will fly the plane. The fact that rest if the universe is uninhabitable is irrelevant as the one single part of the universe that is inhabitable could not exist without the rest of the uninhabitable universe to support it.

>>2327244
>The purpose of this movie is not for Him finding it "interesting". It is for us, His creation. We are here to experience and to understand.
Yes, but the question is what motive could you possibly grant to an entirely omniscient and omnipotent deity to create anything at all, much less something that requires things to be interesting? The guy who runs the Truman show is human and after ratings for entirely comprehensible reasons.

I mean, if the universe is some enclosed loop in which mankind is its creator and thus created a God with his interests in mind, ala Issac Asimov's "The Last Question", maybe you'd be onto something, but otherwise, any being with those attributes is completely unknowable as are its motivation.

I mean, yeah, it sounds great, but if ya think about it for more than a moment, the logic kinda falls through. Unless, of course, you remove or reduce those absolutist attributes.

>>2327219
Arguing from scale will get you nowhere. Yea, the universe is infinitely bigger than us on a cosmic scale, but look how big we are from the scale of the subatomic?
We don't know what portions of the universe are occupiable by life, because we do not know the full capabilities of life.

>justify anything by pointing to the apparent nature of the universe
Sure I can. Here is one.
A society composed of individuals with goals that would arise from biological natural selection will always do worse if it randomly kills members of its group. It and those it is working with will always be outperformed by groups that do not allow that.
There are sociological, ecological, biological, economic, militaristic, and even physical reasons for that, but it seems that a 'property' of our universe is that "Randomly killing those trying to work with you will turn out badly'.

Do you see?
You might think those reasons just make sense, but, as we discussed earlier, it is God that decides what makes sense and what doesn't.

>>2327307
Ultimately you are trying to understand something which is far greater than you could possibly imagine.

If God could fit in your brain, He would not be worth worshipping.

>>2327323
>You might think those reasons just make sense, but, as we discussed earlier, it is God that decides what makes sense and what doesn't.
The only place where God might fit in that assumption is that he created the laws of the universe that lead to that situation where, yes, those are logical rules to follow to promote that axiom of survival.

But if there was no God, and the universe was self created or just an inevitability of physics, then it would still be just as true. Thus God has no place in that result.

On the other hand, a people who believe in a god that is going to bring about the end of the world any day now, or in an afterlife that is eternal, and thus infinitely more important than this one, is actually detrimental to the spread of life beyond this fragile Earth and any long term, multi-generational efforts that extend beyond the individual's brief life.

So if you want a deity dedicated to that axiom of collective survival, it seems you'd want one that doesn't guarantee it, nor negates it, and rewards long term efforts towards it, rather than making them meaningless via an eternal afterlife and an inevitable judgement day.

>>2326617
Because angels have free will as well.

None of those things exist in heaven.

None of those things existed in the Garden of Eden on God's watch.

Everything you hate came as a result of Adam's sin, and the fall of mankind, and the cursing of the earth.

>>2325597
>There's a catch though: everything you do is predetermined and free will is an illusion by that model. If God is omniscient, then the span of his knowledge must also include the names in the Book of Life and, conversely, the names of those damned and He must have therefore known them for all eternity preceding and following the cosmos. It's a pretty straightforward setup:


I think the error here may be in assuming that God exists bound by time, like we do, and that if he knows something, from his vantage outside of time, that constrains free will.

>>2326484

You should read, and do, Romans 10:9-10 before you attempt to read the bible.

It's incomprehensible to you in your current form.

You think people can act right, and be righteous in their behavior.

Jesus proved that is not the case with people a million times more religious than you are. That unless your righteousness exceeds that of the most religious people of all time, you are going to hell.

Your first step towards life is to become a born again Christian.

Your take on the gospels is as an untaught infant reading it upside down.

>>2326665

Rubbish. God is not trapped by his own sovereignty, and he can, and did, retreat into his own sovereignty in order to grant you yours.

Which is why you have the sovereign right to reject the Lord of Hosts, and reject the only means of salvation known to mankind.

It's not God's will that any should perish. So if you perish, it is by your will be done, not God's.

>>2326765

Do you believe that God can communicate with his creation?

Do you believe God has prophets?

Do you believe God has an only begotten Son?

Stop with your nonsense; of course we can tell you what God says in God's word. If you are foolish enough to hear it from his lips for the very first time, it will be on your way to being cast into a lake of fire for not being like God.

File: Cthulhu-vote_for_the_GREATER_evil.jpg (764KB, 2048x1382px) Image search: [Google]

764KB, 2048x1382px

>>2327356
>If God could fit in your brain, He would not be worth worshipping.
Cthulhu and The Great Old Ones are supposedly incomprehensible - but I'd hardly call them worth worshipping as a result.

Myself, I'd be much more comfortable worshipping a comprehensible deity. If I don't know why I'm worshipping it, that makes the act rather meaningless, but if I know and understands the deity's motivations, and find them sound, then we have something worth worshipping.

>>2327244
Interesting. Job was the first Truman.

>>2327424
God has made his motivations clear. He intends to redeem those fallen men who choose to be transformed into new creations through the Holy Spirit of God, a gift made possible by the sacrifice of Jesus Christ on the cross.

The point is to become a living being, whereas right now you are spiritually dead, and dying.

>>2327424
The Bible says that the natural man does not understand the things of God.

Scripture is 'foolishness' to unsaved, unrepentant sinners.

>>2327430
>The point is to become a living being, whereas right now you are spiritually dead, and dying.
Meh, no arguing that point.

But it seems to me that an omnipotent and omniscient deity that creates fallen men is ultimately responsible for their state and their fate. I find no comfort in worshipping a being that would do that than in worshipping the universe at large - which at least hasn't been anthropomorphized to the degree where I can actually assign blame to it for anything, but nor does it have any apparent motivation or consciousness for me to give it credit for anything I might find "good", including my own existence, which if anything, seems to be just as much in spite of it as because of it, if not more.

A deity that wasn't all powerful or all knowing, but trying to be benign and to demonstrate good, insomuch as it could, would be much more accessible than some force that's just responsible for anything and everything.

But I suppose, again, that's why we have the model of Jesus that we have, among some of the more liberal religions. An avatar of the all-deity that is limited in scope and humanly relatable. I at least agree with most of what he represents and proposes, but I have quite a bit more trouble swallowing the ultimate value and goodness of the model of God some organizations have presented him as being a representative of.

>>2327467

God did not create fallen man.

Adam and Eve were filled with the Holy Spirit, the Breath of Life, and were created immortal.

You judge them by yourself, when you are a thousand generation copy of their fallen offspring made in their own dead image, not in the image of God.

>>2327467
>model of God some organizations

Go to the source then. I probably have more problems with such organizations than you do, and for much sounder reasons. You cannot tell when they are lying and deceiving you about God; I can.

>>2327482
If God is completely omniscient and omnipotent then he is responsible for the existence of fallen men.

Even if, as some say, he granted us free will and created our souls by blocking his knowledge of our decisions and actions, he's still responsible for that act, and in turn for ours, by deliberate ignorance.

If there are limits to his knowledge and power, then you can make an argument that he is not, though your own limitations might make it impossible to delineate the particulars.

Biblically speaking, however, that last possibility seems entirely possible, just judging by his own actions within the story - he is taken off guard, and he does have regrets. It maybe this whole omnipotence/omniscience paradox, maybe the result of extra-biblical thinking, in much the same way that it seems increasingly likely that the concepts of "nothing" and "infinity", maybe fictional mental constructs that cause unnecessary paradoxes in science and philosophy, so to may fictional assumptions lead to religious self-contradiction.

>You cannot tell when they are lying and deceiving you about God; I can.
...I think the Bible has something to say about this level of presumptuousness, but good for you.

>>2327387
There is very little in your response that I disagree with.
Don't let your dispositions about certain people and their motivations blind you from the truth.
If the words of fools prevent you from hearing what they say because you are afraid it will make you one of them, then you will never see the light.
God bless you, and thank you for talking with me.

>>2327549
>If God is completely omniscient and omnipotent then he is responsible for the existence of fallen men.

Can God be omniscient and omnipotent and not be responsible for the fall of man?

>>2327549
>If there are limits to his knowledge and power

Could there be self imposed limits to his knowledge and power, that he himself is in control of? And for whatever duration he chooses?

Is God a slave to his own attributes?

>>2327577
A response this kind and enlightened has me double checking the URL.

>>2327549
>he is taken off guard

Never.

>and he does have regrets
If you're referring to his emotions prior to killing the entirety of creation, but for what was in the ark, maybe take it as a peek into the emotions of God and not a piece of "evidence" that he is not omnipotent, or omniscient, or omniwhatever.

That maybe he's a person, and killing billions of creations was a difficult thing to do. Not that he says he regretted it, but repented of making everything in the first place.

>>2327610
>>2327602
Covered in the second sentence of that same post.

>>2327549
>...I think the Bible has something to say about this level of presumptuousness, but good for you.

It says "by their fruits you will know them". Their fruits smell of sulfur and attar.

Christians have a love for each other that none of us are in charge of; the Spirit in me loves the Spirit in another Christian, and we so love each other.

>>2327622
I did not agree with the presupposition that God blocked himself of knowledge of our actions.

Of course God knew he would have to evict Adam and Eve before he made the Garden itself.

My question is a little more subtle.

Can anything or anyone be responsible for themselves in a world where God is responsible for everything?

>>2327619
If "God wept", isn't meant to represent regret, then I don't know what does. If having to block actions doesn't suggest a lack of either omnipotence or omniscience, then I don't know what does. An omniscient and omnipotent being, responsible for everything that is, shouldn't have regrets nor have to react after the fact, both of which he does, repeatedly, throughout the Bible. Nevermind all the testing.

If he has, again as some suggest, blocked his omniscience to the actions of ensouled individuals, that would explain some of this, and it would mean there is a self-imposed cap on his knowledge, however, that self-imposed ignorance is deliberate, so he still isn't absolved of it.

The only way out of that entirely is if he's limited in some fashion not of his own volition, and we've merely mistakenly added these properties that give rise to the paradox... And I can't say I wouldn't be comfortable with that, though it gives rise to countless other issues.

Maybe it doesn't work like that at all. Maybe there is no linear scale from the past to the futures. Maybe it all exists as fields of probabilities, just like the placements of electrons?
Prove to me that the past and the future exist as anything other than predictions about the current and future state of matter in this universe made by intelligences in this universe.

>>2325956
That's a good point but your argument defeats itself because omniscience in itself would include being knowledgeable of merely even the *potential* of
>knowing what it is like to be an intelligent entity in the universe you create and having something horrible happen to you
even without it having to actually ever happen.

So God wouldn't be subjecting himself to anything by creating such suffering for he'd be aware of experiencing its potential regardless. In that regard it wouldn't make a difference to him. The only difference would be in the fact of whether there's actually someone suffering or not.

>>2327664

God wept in the bible: 0

Jesus wept in the bible: Many times.

Do you understand that Jesus is the physical manifestation of the living God, a spirit being who dwells in unapproachable light?

Do you understand that Jesus was as much man as though he were not God, and as much God as though he were not man?

To say "Jesus wept", as in John 11:35, the shortest verse in the bible, demonstrates his humanity.

That he said "Lazarus, come forth!" and Lazarus came out of his tomb, dead 4 days, shows his divinity.

>>2325956

Hence the suffering of Jesus on the cross as he bore the sins of humanity upon himself were more than we can imagine.

I believe he lived all of those sins, there on the cross; that he bore the full wrath of God for all of those sins, there on the cross; and that he dismissed his spirit and took all of those sins to the grave with him.

But up from the grave he arose! With a mighty triumph o'er his foes! He arose a victor from the dark domain and he lives forever with his saints to reign!

He arose!

He arose!

Hallelujah, Christ arose!

>>2325956
>There is must be some really fucking good reason to subject yourself to that.

He did it to redeem mankind.

Whether you think it was worth it or not, God obviously thought it was.

>>2327829

He's alive! He's alive!

He's alive and I'm forgiven, heaven's gates are open wide!

Our champion won! Do you understand that? Our champion fought DEATH, and He WON! Our champion fought the GRAVE, and He WON!

Can you not hear the angels rejoicing! Can you not hear the saints in heaven singing! Can you not shout HALLELUJAH TO THE KING OF KINGS!

>>2327859
>>2327829

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J-AsVxTrgWk

>>2327866
!!! שְׁמַע יִשְׂרָאֵל ה' אֱלֹהֵינוּ ה' אֶחָד

Yehoshua! Yehoshua! Yehoshua! Behold the Lamb of God, who takes away the sins of the world!

>>2327866
>tfw Christ comes back and there will be an earthquake that shakes the entire world as the sun and moon go dark and the antichrist cowers in fear

>>2327866
Perfect Psalm for the thread, too.

>>2327892

O mountains fall on us! For the Day of the Lamb is here, and who can stand against Him?

>>2327809
NTG, but Jeremiah describes God weeping for Israel, and some translations describe God weeping after the flood.

https://www.enterthebible.org/Controls/feature/tool_etb_resource_display/resourcebox.aspx?selected_rid=488&original_id=44

Granted you could argue it's spiritual weeping beyond our comprehension, or what not, but there's definitely some sorta "regret" going on there and elsewhere.

...and like he said, all those "tests" make no sense, if you assume he knows the outcome.

>>2327636
>Can anything or anyone be responsible for themselves in a world where God is responsible for everything?
Well, even in a world without God, from an omniscient perspective, you still have no free will, as the chain of determinism is set.

But in such a universe, where omniscience is impossible, every being that is self-aware nonetheless has free will, from its own perspective, due to that innate limit of individual knowledge. No one physical being can know everything that ever has and ever will happen, quantum woo or not.

In a universe with an omnipotent and omniscient creator of all, yeah, that being is ultimately responsible for everything.

A better question might be can an omniscient and omnipotent being have free will? He knows everything he'll ever do, thus all his actions are set as well. Maybe he grants himself free will, by forcing ignorance upon himself as to the souls of men he creates. That sliver of unknowing giving him wiggle room to act in a way he can no longer predict, sort-to-speak. It maybe that, without that act of creation of something that is unknowable to him, he is static in his own presence, and thus, for there to be any action at all, this division in creation is inevitable.

Granted there's some weird kabbala mysticism that kind goes along those lines, that the act of creation is simply inevitable consequence.

>>2327866
I personally love these ones, even if I'm not eastern orthodox.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8-EfW7gYzns

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NgriVVhCM3c

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wAH5pZXYGlI

Good talk everyone. See you next year.

File: 1483864769374.png (86KB, 192x187px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 192x187px

>>2325597
>"The Christian God"
>Almost every verse is taken from the Jewish Bible

>>2325597
1. You have free will, your choices are your own. There is no 'paradox' when you consider omniscience because omniscience just means God has the ability to see the result of every choice you make, your free will allows you to be the one who crystallizes one of those many possibilities into actual reality.

2. Hell is hardly a punishment, it's granting the wishes of people who reject God. You have a choice while you're on Earth whether to accept or reject God and then when you spend your entire life rejecting him and claiming he doesn't exist you have the gall to say you don't like the fact that in the afterlife you end up in a plane of existence without God? Hypocritical much? Make your own decision, don't blame anyone else for the consequences of your actions but yourself, this is what free will means. It's a responsibility, own it you coward.

Basically all your assertions rest on the idea that everyone is only a linear path in life and cannot deviate from it, which isn't true. God sees all possible paths your life can take, He hopes you will choose the right one but ultimately the choice is yours and yours alone. Don't blame God for making shitty choices.

>>2328688
Your point?

>>2328716
The New Testament forms the basis of Christian belief. The Old Testament exists to give context to the New Testament, i.e why sin exists, the prophecies that predicted Christs appearance and the reason he needed to be sent. It's a little bit silly to be using Old Testament verses to attack Christianity when Christians follow the teachings of Jesus Christ.

>>2325877
You've got to think though, for every action there's an equal and opposite reaction. There will always be balance, positive to meet the negative, Yin to meet the Yang. The circle of life goes round and round there's ups and downs but no getting out so take your time enjoy the ride and you better work hard if you want to feel alive!

>>2328712
>1. You have free will, your choices are your own. There is no 'paradox' when you consider omniscience because omniscience just means God has the ability to see the result of every choice you make
That's not the argument, nor the problem.

The problem is having an omnipotent and omniscient creator god, who thus knows exactly what you are going to do, doesn't remove your free will - it removes your responsibility, and moves it from you to your creator.

If God is the omniscient, omnipotent creator of all, then he's responsible for designing you to fail and has predestined you to an eternal afterlife of abject misery without him. Even if he has deliberately blinded himself to that eventuality, to grant you autonomy from his presence, it's a deliberate ignorance, and the fact that he warns you of it, suggests it isn't even complete ignorance. So... Either hell isn't all that bad (perhaps even a project to create yet another independant god), or God isn't omniscient or omnipotent, or he's a dick.

>>2328736
The fedoras would be much less apt to bring up the old testament, if the fundamentalists weren't so keen on using that same text to justify all sorts of evil stupidity. (Plus that whole "not one letter of the law" thing, etc, does rather work against the idea that Jesus wanted you to abandon said text.)

I do sometimes wish the Cathars had won the war against the Catholics though. I for one believe Christianity saved the west, but it would have been a whole lot kinder, adaptable, and less counter to continuing to hold that function, if everyone had taken their advice and dropped the OT altogether way back then.

But no, Innocent III had to fucking go ruin everything in such a way that now we're all stuck with all this ancient Hebrew baggage.

>>2328712

The illusion of choice is due to poor framing of questions and limited perspective. If one had access to all of the information used to determine the outcome of an event and the proper tools to model it, it could be predicted with 100% accuracy. This is applicable to every event, and since all events are results of other events, there is already a path laid out. It's not a matter of God seeing all of the options; there aren't any options in the first place.

>>2329138
Yeah, but if there is no god or other supernatural Laplace demon force of omniscience, it isn't physically possible to track all past interactions to the dawn of time and thus predict all future outcomes. There's always wiggle room for the perception of free will, at least, so long as there's any degree of ignorance among the individually aware, and similarly, room for responsibility. Even if you're aware of the chain of inevitability, you're still stuck with free will due to your own limitations.

>>2326884

Discrediting an argument because the argument doesn't meet your standards is the philosophical equivalent of loudly yelling "LA LA LA, I CAN'T HEAR YOU".

>>2329138
Only if you believe in a 100% deterministic universe, which Christians do not.

>>2329133
>If God is the omniscient, omnipotent creator of all, then he's responsible for designing you to fail
No-one is designed to fail. You are not predestined for anything. Your decisions are your own.

>>2325647
There's one problem with your theory: perception. Dark likes dark and light likes light. The infidels are happy where they are, and so shall be until concrete evidence from God comes rushing on them all like an invisible flood.

God is real, there is no doubt, the evidence is astounding!

>>2325597
>>>2329138
>Only if you believe in a 100% deterministic universe, which Christians do not.


Why, if I may inquire?

>>2329197
>Only if you believe in a 100% deterministic universe, which Christians do not.
Most proclaim to believe in an omnipotent and omnipresent God, thus the universe is 100% deterministic - it's just instead of being determined by physics, it's determined by God's will.

>No-one is designed to fail. You are not predestined for anything. Your decisions are your own.
Then either god is not omniscient, not omnipotent, or doesn't exist.

You can't have it both ways. If he knows all, he knows you're going to fail, knows every decision your are going to make, and thus built that destiny into you. Or, at best, has simply opted to deliberately ignore your destiny by his own will - which still leaves the responsibility at his door.

>>2329215
>Why, if I may inquire?
Free will. Determinism is incompatible with the concept because it implies that your decisions are part of a causal chain that stretches back to the Big Bang. Your decisions are not your own they're chemical reactions that are a result of cause and effect and if you had a computer that could accurately model every particle interaction inside your brain then you could theoretically predict every action you ever make.

>>2329217
>You can't have it both ways.
Of course you can. See >>2328712

>There is no 'paradox' when you consider omniscience because omniscience just means God has the ability to see the result of every choice you make, your free will allows you to be the one who crystallizes one of those many possibilities into actual reality.

Your will is your own. God knows the result of every action you take and the inevitable result of every path you tread but you are the one in control, you choose the path.

>>2329227
>Free will. Determinism is incompatible with the concept because it implies that your decisions are part of a causal chain that stretches back to the Big Bang.
That doesn't absolve you of free will nor responsibility, save from a fictional omniscient perspective, that isn't physically possible without God or something like it. You still have free will from your own perspective by the fact that you are not omniscient, and can't predict the path of every interaction back to the big bang (or what not). Only the omniscient lack free will.

>>2329237
That still doesn't work, because it's not about whether you have free will - you have that with god or without, predestined or not - it's about ultimate responsibility. If there is an omniscient and omnipotent creator, the ultimate responsibility for anything you choose to do lies at his door.

If he's not omniscient, or not omnipotent, then there's a possibility for you being responsible for your own destiny, but otherwise, he set you up for the fall.

If I create a sentient robot with free will, knowing that it's going to go out and kill a hundred people, then it's my responsibility, not the robot's, even if it autonomously makes the decisions. Even if I leave a little note saying "please don't kill a hundred people - signed, your creator", knowing full well he's going to ignore it.

There has to be an intervening level of ignorance, not of my own volition, to transfer any of the blame for the robot's actions from myself to said robot.

If you know what your creation is going to do, or choose to be deliberately ignorant of what it's going to do, whatever it does and whatever it suffers as a result, is your own damned fault.

>>2329264
>If I create a sentient robot with free will, knowing that it's going to go out and kill a hundred people, then it's my responsibility, not the robot's, even if it autonomously makes the decisions.
If you have a child that kills 100 people is is also your responsibility? Should the parents be punished for their children's crimes? You have a very strange way of allocating responsibility.

>>2329387
If you find me a parent who knows with 100% certainty every action and every thought his child will ever take ever, I'll show you a god.