First cause

Originally posted by Conrau K
omnipotence is not omnipotence at all.

And you think MY position is crazy!

Originally posted by rwingett
You keep repeating this gibberish as if the mere constant repetition of it will somehow make it true. It will not. Your conceptualization of "existing out of time" is pure nonsense from start to finish. God is omniscient, but wait...he's really only partially omniscient. Talk about a logical contradiction. It is amazing the number of increasingly ela ...[text shortened]... you're willing to jump through in order to salvage your prized conception of "free will."

Your conceptualization of "existing out of time" is pure nonsense from start to finish. ---ringwett---

This may be true but the argument is "if God exists then ..." which assumes that God exists as part of the debate. What you are conceptualising is something like "If God exists and is omniscient and cannot exist outside of time then if he knows what you will do tomorrow you can't have free will"

This is an argument I would agree with except for the fact that obviously a God that cannot exist out of time cannot actually be a God (since how would he create time ) and is patently not the God of Christianity. Thus you have refuted a God that no christian I know of actually believes in . Well done!!!

Originally posted by Agerg
[b]This is where Christ comes in. Christ is the "part of" God that is bound up in time in some way. Notice how when Jesus was around he was surprised by certain people doing things (like the centurions faith) . God is also in time and bound to the universe in Christ. God is also three , so in some ways God can both know things and not know things simultaneo ...[text shortened]... of Jesus's stay on Earth, what mechanism allowed God to "watch" things outside of time?

ermm ... the Holy Spirit? Don't forget that according to Christian theology although Jesus died in reality he never left us in spirit (and I don't mean metaphorically)

Originally posted by scottishinnz
What a load of confused rubbish.

God knowing or not knowing is absolutely central to the entire thing. We might believe we have free will, but as long as God is claimed to be omnipotent we cannot do anything he doesn't already know we'll do. We don't have free will, as we cannot change our destinies as laid out by your omnipotent superduper-God.

I doubt you have the capacity to understand this, however.

You already know what hitler will do in his life , how does that prove hitler had no free will , please explain.

Originally posted by no1marauder
I thought your SuperDuper God existed "outside time"??? How then are "all events to him are past events"?? This is gibberish.He

If you are outside of time then you can see the entire timeline from start to finish , therefore for you everything that will happen has happened . The universe is already dead and gone a trillion eons ago for God , so to speak.

Originally posted by knightmeister
ermm ... the Holy Spirit? Don't forget that according to Christian theology although Jesus died in reality he never left us in spirit (and I don't mean metaphorically)

Ah the old Holy Spirit chestnut eh!...so before christianity (If I'm not mistaken it is only Christians who recieve the holy spirit), by what mechanism was/is God able to "watch" events independently of time?

I could have argued more but I really want you to resolve this issue since you so vehemently believe it to be true.

Originally posted by Agerg
Ah the old Holy Spirit chestnut eh!...so before christianity (If I'm not mistaken it is only Christians who recieve the holy spirit), by what mechanism was/is God able to "watch" events independently of time?

I could have argued more but I really want you to resolve this issue since you so vehemently believe it to be true.

The Holy Spirit is not a chestnut but an established part of Chrsitian theology. Although it is only Christians who freely receive him he is present in the world as well amongst believers and non believers alike.

BTW- One could easily argue that it is you that vehemently wants to de-bunk my argument. I have nothing to prove. I do this partly for fun and partly for God.

Originally posted by scottishinnz
And you think MY position is crazy!

Taking words out of context suggests a lack of intellectual intregrity. You might just become a fundemantalist Christian yet.

I said, "such an omnipotence is not omnipotence at all." Within context, the meaning was clear, "your definition of omnipotence is not omnipotence at all." Your omission of the word "such" and the surrounding clauses in the sentence was downright deceptive and immature.

Originally posted by Conrau K
Taking words out of context suggests a lack of intellectual intregrity. You might just become a fundemantalist Christian yet.

I said, "such an omnipotence is not omnipotence at all." Within context, the meaning was clear, "your definition of omnipotence is not omnipotence at all." Your omission of the word "such" and the surrounding clauses in the sentence was downright deceptive and immature.

I'm right with you on this one conrauK. I have been the victim myself of twisting of words and mind games. There's a few charactors around here who like to portray themselves as the sole exponents of logic and objectivity and slayers of "evil religion".

Infact the truth is that they are just as fundamental than the fundies themselves and they are in denial about the axe they are grinding. They treat these debates as if there's no way you can make any decent point from the start , as if it would kill them just to accept that you might have a point. My guess is many of them have had bad experiences of religion and want revenge.

I'd also like to say that (although we don't agree on many things) you are one of the people on this forum that I have great respect for. I find your posts usually intelligent and fair. It's refreshing to see someone who is not a Christian as such take scotty on. To him you are of course the "enemy" because you don't have a knee jerk "religion is ridiculous" approach.

Originally posted by knightmeister
The Holy Spirit is not a chestnut but an established part of Chrsitian theology. Although it is only Christians who freely receive him he is present in the world as well amongst believers and non believers alike.

BTW- One could easily argue that it is you that vehemently wants to de-bunk my argument. I have nothing to prove. I do this partly for fun and partly for God.

I stand corrected...holy spirits aren't chestnuts.

But in any case...where was I??? ah yes, existing out of time...So tell me Knightmeister, at such times when there existed no one to receive the holy spirit, and when Jesus didn't walk the Earth how did God "watch" things independently of time?

(Once I have had satisfaction I may move into different territories but de-bunk or not de-bunk I want to see how non-water-tight this existence out of time theory is of yours)

Finally for what it's worth, I also do this for fun 🙂 I would be perfectly willing to concede even a massive point if it was demonstrated wrong.

Originally posted by FreakyKBH
Arguments such as this incorrectly put the emphasis on the suffering of man. The glory of God is the ultimate consideration, not the sufferings of man.

It puts emphasis on the suffering of man because apparently the suffering of man is justified by the sins we commit, and theists argue the Glorious God allegedly punishes us. I along with others challenge this idea. Furthermore, the glory of a God who's existence I have yet to be convinced of is certainly not *my* ultimate consideration! Not for this reason alone would you perhaps put bring forth an answer that addresses my argument directly as opposed to one that side steps it...thank you!

Originally posted by Agerg
I stand corrected...holy spirits aren't chestnuts.

But in any case...where was I??? ah yes, existing out of time...So tell me Knightmeister, at such times when there existed no one to receive the holy spirit, and when Jesus didn't walk the Earth how did God "watch" things independently of time?

(Once I have had satisfaction I may move into different terr ...[text shortened]... I would be perfectly willing to concede even a massive point if it was demonstrated wrong.

Knightmeister, at such times when there existed no one to receive the holy spirit, and when Jesus didn't walk the Earth how did God "watch" things independently of time? --agerg---

I don't really know what the Holy Spirit was up to millions of years ago to be honest. There's a lot more I don't know than I do know. If I knew the answer to questions like that I would be a world famous writer not an Anon on a forum.

Originally posted by Agerg
It puts emphasis on the suffering of man because apparently the suffering of man is justified by the sins we commit, and theists argue the Glorious God allegedly punishes us. I along with others challenge this idea. Furthermore, the glory of a God who's existence I have yet to be convinced of is certainly not *my* ultimate consideration! Not for this reason al ...[text shortened]... an answer that addresses my argument directly as opposed to one that side steps it...thank you!

because apparently the suffering of man is justified by the sins we commit, and theists argue the Glorious God allegedly punishes us. I along with others challenge this idea ---agerg---

...and so you should ....I don't belive that.

Originally posted by knightmeister
Knightmeister, at such times when there existed no one to receive the holy spirit, and when Jesus didn't walk the Earth how did God "watch" things independently of time? --agerg---

I don't really know what the Holy Spirit was up to millions of years ago to be honest. There's a lot more I don't know than I do know. If I knew the answer to questions like that I would be a world famous writer not an Anon on a forum.

Knightmeister! I am sure you aware that I care to know what this *holy spirit* has been up to as much as I care to know what is the FSM's favourite bedtime story.
I merely wish to analyse your assertion that God exists outside of time...I don't find it tenable at all, and so I ask again, by what mechanism does God "watch" things independently of time? 🙂

Originally posted by Conrau K
Taking words out of context suggests a lack of intellectual intregrity. You might just become a fundemantalist Christian yet.

I said, "such an omnipotence is not omnipotence at all." Within context, the meaning was clear, "your definition of omnipotence is not omnipotence at all." Your omission of the word "such" and the surrounding clauses in the sentence was downright deceptive and immature.

Ye Gods, whilst not all that bright you're certainly persistent.

Let's clear this up.

1) There is stuff God can't do.

2) Therefore, God does not have the power to do anything he chooses.

3) Thus, God is not omnipotent.