A good Christian must torture unbelievers!

[TheSnake]

I don't think that most christians actually believe this way, but can you tell me why this line of reasoning would be wrong:

The golden rule says that you should do to others, what you'd want done to you. So if you were for some reason unsaved, you'd want to be saved, right? No matter how bad earthly suffering is, it's just temporary compared to the eternal suffering in hell.
It's known that by torturing people, you can have them admit to anything. With brainwashing you can have them actually believe it too.
Because a good christian always strives to acts charitably and altruisticly, shouldn't you torture and brainwash unbelievers in an attempt to save their souls? If you fail, what's a little extra suffering compared to eternity in hell. If you succeed, they'll see the truth in heaven.

I probably should post this to a theists forum, but I doubt I'll get any coherent answers. Although theologyonline might be worth a shot, though they'd probably think I'm right. :(

[Philboid Studge]

A saved person would, if he followed the Golden Rule, be obliged to save others -- which is precisely what evangelizing Xians attempt to do. It's not exactly torture, but .. on the other hand, yes it is.

This is the problem with the positive, active wording of the Golden Rule. Putting it in the negative, passive form -- Don't do to others what you don't want done to yourself -- would at least preclude all this torturous evangelizing.

[thomas]

The problem with this line of argument is that it attempts to equate a forced admission of something under duress to a willing acknowledgement of a believed truth. The latter is what God is looking for in relation to salvation, the former won't cut it.

[Lurker]

You can never know a person's true thoughts/beliefs. You may torture/force someone to say they believe, but you can never force anyone to actually believe. Your free will is very stubborn that way. I'm afraid your method would generate a lot of apparant believers and just as many people who hate you - but no true believers.

[Kamikaze189]

Torturing will get a person to say anything and brainwashing can wear off. Sorry theists, but even the most extreme measures won't get people to believe.

[Lurker]

Torturing will get a person to say anything and brainwashing can wear off. Sorry theists, but even the most extreme measures won't get people to believe.
You imply that theists (christians?) routinely recommend/practice extreme measures (torture?) in order to get people to believe. Huh?

[snap crafter]

What would you call 2 hour sermons on sundays?

[Lurker]

just reading Lurkers posts is a form of torture........
Here's some more torture for you. Ha ha, made you look!! :lol:

[TheSnake]

Lurker and Kamikaze: I'm no expert in brainwashing, but I'm pretty sure that it combined with suitable chemicals and liberal frontal lobe surgery will make a believer out of even the most stubborn atheist.

Thomas: What is willing acknowledgement really? If your acknowledgement is not willing, do you go to hell? There means there are a lot of christian sects with members that haven't heard of anything else. God belief is the only thing they've ever known. Do they go to hell for not knowing what's it like to be an atheist? Also does the bible or some other source that a christian would believe in support your claim that God wants or cares about willingness?

[ghoulslime]

just reading Lurkers posts is a form of torture........
Yeah. I'll believe if it will shut him up! :o

[thomas]

Thomas: What is willing acknowledgement really?
If you don't recognise the difference between a confession willingly given and one extracted through the use of thumbscrews then I don't know what to say to help you understand.

If your acknowledgement is not willing, do you go to hell? There means there are a lot of christian sects with members that haven't heard of anything else. God belief is the only thing they've ever known. Do they go to hell for not knowing what's it like to be an atheist?
No, you've lost me here. What does the range of beliefs that a person has been exposed to have to do with the willingness they have to consent to any one belief ?

Also does the bible or some other source that a christian would believe in support your claim that God wants or cares about willingness?
Well, I think there are plenty of references that call for belief. Take John 3:16 as an overused example. Does somebody who is forced to make a confession by thumbscrews really believe what they say or do they just say it as an expedient ?

[Lurker]

Yeah. I'll believe if it will shut him up! :o
You first....

[thomas]

just reading Lurkers posts is a form of torture........
Yeah. I'll believe if it will shut him up! :o
His views may be torture but at least they are not as offensive as white supremacists, ghoul

[snap crafter]

Hey, that's niggar hippie talk thar thomas

[TheSnake]

... difference between a confession willingly given and ... thumbscrews ...
I suppose that a confession extracted with thumbscrews is not willing, but you still haven't answered the question. Are you saying that unless I already know the answer, you can't tell it to me? Do you know the difference between willing and unwilling? I'd say it's not clear cut. People are often undecisive and/or can be persuaded to different views in different ways.
Also I didn't say anything about thumbscrews and I did include brainwashing.

...
No, you've lost me here. What does the range of beliefs that a person has been exposed to have to do with the willingness they have to consent to any one belief ?
If you only know one way, which one will you take? A person who doesn't know about any other beliefs is not in a position to make a decision. A person who's threatened with torture is not in a position to make a decision. Or if you don't consider plain torture willing enough, then all you need to do is erase the unbelievers memories and they won't know anything other than god.

...
Well, I think there are plenty of references that call for belief. Take John 3:16 as an overused example. Does somebody who is forced to make a confession by thumbscrews really believe what they say or do they just say it as an expedient ?
I'll lookup John 3:16, but in the mean time, thumbscrews aren't the only means of torture and you can't ignore the psychological effects of proper torture and brainwashing, especially if brain surgery and suitable psychotropic drugs are involved.

[thomas]

Give it up Snake. Your OP posed a situation regarding torturing people into salvation. I've pointed out the obvious flaw in your argument, regarding the free-will of the participant. Do you not see this ?

[thomas]

Hey, that's niggar hippie talk thar thomas
I hope this is some kind of joke

[TheSnake]

Give it up Snake. Your OP posed a situation regarding torturing people into salvation. I've pointed out the obvious flaw in your argument, regarding the free-will of the participant. Do you not see this ?
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
I don't see any mention of free will there. In fact, it doesn't have any relevance to the topic at hand. All it says is that believers will live forever. It doesn't even say anything about unbelievers.

I really haven't seen any obvious flaws, you've just scratched the surface and haven't done a very good job even at that.
You have not established that god wants free will and you haven't shown that free will can't be induced by means of torture and brainwashing.

Further more, you 'know' that there's a god. An unbeliever that refuses to believe despite your 'evidence' must be flawed. He's obviously mentally ill. Wouldn't you treat a schizophrenic with drugs to help him? Why wouldn't you 'treat' an unbeliever with any treatment necessary to save his eternal souls? Why wouldn't god want you to do that?

[snap crafter]

just reading Lurkers posts is a form of torture........
Yeah. I'll believe if it will shut him up! :o
His views may be torture but at least they are not as offensive as white supremacists, ghoul
You made a white supremacists comment, I say something a white supremicist might say. I hate to think the joke was takin' a wrong way, I mean, as ghoul said before, I can go around calling every thing I dislike niggar, it's my god given right.

[thomas]

Yeh, you can go around saying it, but don't be surprised if I form a really bad opinion of you if you do it. I don't find it tolerable.

[ghoulslime]

Yeh, you can go around saying it, but don't be surprised if I form a really bad opinion of you if you do it. I don't find it tolerable.
Nigger! :lol:

[Kamikaze189]

Torturing will get a person to say anything and brainwashing can wear off. Sorry theists, but even the most extreme measures won't get people to believe.
You imply that theists (christians?) routinely recommend/practice extreme measures (torture?) in order to get people to believe. Huh?
While I don't think my statement implies that, I do think peer pressuring someone into a religion is an extreme measure. I know it happens a lot, especially in younger years. It can then turn to brainwash or rejection.

I didn't mean to target christians, but if they do it more: Ok. :P

[Poons Goddy God]

Sitting through a 1.5 hr. church service is pure torture. I would pass the time by finding crazy bible verses and showing them to my wife. I showed her 2kings2:29 and we haven't been back to church since!!!

[thomas]

2 Kings 2:29 ? Are you sure ?

[Lurker]

2 Kings 2:29 ? Are you sure ?
Here's what my bible says in 2 Kings 2:29... and I'm quoting it directly.

""

Maybe he couldn't stand the silence so he left. :D

[whoneedscience]

Give it up Snake. Your OP posed a situation regarding torturing people into salvation. I've pointed out the obvious flaw in your argument, regarding the free-will of the participant. Do you not see this ?
John 3:16 "For God so loved the world that he gave his one and only Son,[a] that whoever believes in him shall not perish but have eternal life."
I don't see any mention of free will there. In fact, it doesn't have any relevance to the topic at hand. All it says is that believers will live forever. It doesn't even say anything about unbelievers.

I really haven't seen any obvious flaws, you've just scratched the surface and haven't done a very good job even at that.
You have not established that god wants free will and you haven't shown that free will can't be induced by means of torture and brainwashing.

Furthermore, you 'know' that there's a god. An unbeliever that refuses to believe despite your 'evidence' must be flawed. He's obviously mentally ill. Wouldn't you treat a schizophrenic with drugs to help him? Why wouldn't you 'treat' an unbeliever with any treatment necessary to save his eternal souls? Why wouldn't god want you to do that?
Thomas, you are making the assumption that free will and human reason are infallible. You assume that a person's ideas are buried somewhere in a their essence, rather than merely the result of past experiences and genetic tendencies acting out over electrochemical pathways in the brain. Whether you realize it or not, this is a throwback to Descartes and his Cartesian Dualism, and if you've read his meditations I'd be willing to discuss some if the implications and arguments, but from a scientific standpoint, his ideas are complete crap.

The mind simply does not work in the way that you make it out to. It is a biological computer that processes the information it recieves from the environment. When it is given only one explanation for something, it accepts it so long as there is not another explanation, and is very good at ignoring evidence to the contrary (i.e. theists). If an electrochemical pathway associated with an idea does not exist, there can be no understanding of that idea. There is no aetherial mind or spirit or soul that can generate a perfect free will.

The brain is also plastic: reinforce a behavior enough and it overrides all others (which atrophy). If you could control the way in which a person thinks through torture (which is the main idea), you could eliminate the very idea that they disagree with you. Thus, you're free will argument is meaningless.

[thomas]

Thomas, you are making the assumption that free will and human reason are infallible. You assume that a person's ideas are buried somewhere in a their essence, rather than merely the result of past experiences and genetic tendencies acting out over electrochemical pathways in the brain. Whether you realize it or not, this is a throwback to Descartes and his Cartesian Dualism, and if you've read his meditations I'd be willing to discuss some if the implications and arguments, but from a scientific standpoint, his ideas are complete crap.
Ummm, how did you come to this conclusion about what assumptions I am making ?

The mind simply does not work in the way that you make it out to. It is a biological computer that processes the information it recieves from the environment. When it is given only one explanation for something, it accepts it so long as there is not another explanation, and is very good at ignoring evidence to the contrary (i.e. theists). If an electrochemical pathway associated with an idea does not exist, there can be no understanding of that idea. There is no aetherial mind or spirit or soul that can generate a perfect free will.
I don't subscribe to this kind of reductionism. Do you think that when you and I think of the concept "love" that the same thing is happening in each of our brains ?

The brain is also plastic: reinforce a behavior enough and it overrides all others (which atrophy). If you could control the way in which a person thinks through torture (which is the main idea), you could eliminate the very idea that they disagree with you. Thus, you're free will argument is meaningless.
I don't agree with this idea. Can you show me some evidence that tortured people actually believe what they assent to as opposed to it just being an expedient ?

[Tenspace]

The mind simply does not work in the way that you make it out to. It is a biological computer that processes the information it recieves from the environment. When it is given only one explanation for something, it accepts it so long as there is not another explanation, and is very good at ignoring evidence to the contrary (i.e. theists). If an electrochemical pathway associated with an idea does not exist, there can be no understanding of that idea. There is no aetherial mind or spirit or soul that can generate a perfect free will.
I don't subscribe to this kind of reductionism. Do you think that when you and I think of the concept "love" that the same thing is happening in each of our brains ?
Yep. Why would the electro-chemical processes in your brain differ from anyone elses?

The brain is also plastic: reinforce a behavior enough and it overrides all others (which atrophy). If you could control the way in which a person thinks through torture (which is the main idea), you could eliminate the very idea that they disagree with you. Thus, you're free will argument is meaningless.
I don't agree with this idea. Can you show me some evidence that tortured people actually believe what they assent to as opposed to it just being an expedient ?
Pinker and Ramachandran would be a good start. whoneedscience is right about the brain's plasticity. Reinforcement of new neural pathways can happen quite rapidly, too. Within 48 hours of loss of a limb, for example, the brain has already rewired the pathways and mappings which relate to the missing limb.

Torture involves destroying the brain's associative abilities through trauma. It may be a powerful biological computer, but it's quite easy to fool and manipulate.

Tenspace

[thomas]

I don't subscribe to this kind of reductionism. Do you think that when you and I think of the concept "love" that the same thing is happening in each of our brains ?
Yep. Why would the electro-chemical processes in your brain differ from anyone elses?
Because individual brains build up associations in different ways based on their input ?

Pinker and Ramachandran would be a good start. whoneedscience is right about the brain's plasticity. Reinforcement of new neural pathways can happen quite rapidly, too. Within 48 hours of loss of a limb, for example, the brain has already rewired the pathways and mappings which relate to the missing limb.

Torture involves destroying the brain's associative abilities through trauma. It may be a powerful biological computer, but it's quite easy to fool and manipulate.
So do you also subscribe to the idea that people who are tortured into consenting to something, actually believe what they assent to, as opposed to just agreeing as an expedient ?

[Tenspace]

I don't subscribe to this kind of reductionism. Do you think that when you and I think of the concept "love" that the same thing is happening in each of our brains ?
Yep. Why would the electro-chemical processes in your brain differ from anyone elses?
Because individual brains build up associations in different ways based on their input ?
But they operate the same. If I put tea in my pitcher, and you put lemonade in yours, does that change function of the pitcher? When you feel the emotion called love, and I feel the emotion called love, the same events are occurring in both of our brains.

Pinker and Ramachandran would be a good start. whoneedscience is right about the brain's plasticity. Reinforcement of new neural pathways can happen quite rapidly, too. Within 48 hours of loss of a limb, for example, the brain has already rewired the pathways and mappings which relate to the missing limb.

Torture involves destroying the brain's associative abilities through trauma. It may be a powerful biological computer, but it's quite easy to fool and manipulate.
So do you also subscribe to the idea that people who are tortured into consenting to something, actually believe what they assent to, as opposed to just agreeing as an expedient ?
Yes. Old associations are no longer reinforced. New ones are strongly reinforced. Therefore, the mind of the tortured can be changed to reflect a revised belief in what constitutes the truth within past temporal configurations.

Tenspace

[ocmpoma]

"So do you also subscribe to the idea that people who are tortured into consenting to something, actually believe what they assent to, as opposed to just agreeing as an expedient ?"

I would like to add that it depends - I think that, usually, people who consent under torture do so just to stop the torture, without actually accepting as factual what they consent to. However (and this is what I think Ten was trying to say), it is possible to actually torture and brainwash someone into actually accepting as factual as something that they previously strenuously disregarded as incorrect. In short, you can actually torture someone into believing, for example, that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.

[TheSnake]

it is possible to actually torture and brainwash someone into actually accepting as factual as something that they previously strenuously disregarded as incorrect. In short, you can actually torture someone into believing, for example, that Oceania has always been at war with Eastasia.
This is what I was after also. But is free will even necessary? I can't say how one could believe, without wanting to believe, but does god really care wether belief is voluntary or not? Are there bible passages that specificly state that belief must come willingly? And why does god care about belief anyway? If god is real, then those who do not believe despite evidence are just a bit odd and shouldn't be punished for that, especially if they're not misbehaving otherwise.

[ocmpoma]

Not only that, but God, being omnipotent, could make us all actually willingly believe if it wanted to (assuming, of course, that we had free will, which we wouldn't have with an omnipotent or omniscient god).

[Empire]

Ocmpoma, of course free will is necessary, without it, there would be no point to creation. God, assuming his existence, would have no purpose in creating just a race of mindless robots that loved him because he made us love him. Would you gain any satisfaction, aside from perhaps some physical satisfaction, from having the most beautiful women in the world love you because she had some chip implanted in her head that made her love you? You'd know the love for you wasn't real, because it was not something she chose, it was forced upon her. Just as God could not ever make us willingly believe if he wanted to, because with saying "but God, being omnipotent, could make us all actually willingly believe if it wanted to" you are already admitting that it's not a belief based on free will or a choice because he's "making" you believe it, and so making someone willingly believe is a contradiction in itself.
Also, why do you assume we wouldn't have free will with an omnipotent or omniscient God? Why would the power of foreknowledge hinder our free will? I know there's been a long-standing debate on this, which I haven't read up on for a while. But give this some thought... Imagine I video taped one day in the life of you and saw all the choices you made in regards to what you ate for breakfast, which route you took to work (or wherever), and the like. Then after taping the whole day, I went in a time machine (since God is believed by some to be outside of time, he wouldn't need a time machine, as he's at all points in time) to two days before the day I taped and watched the tape secluded in some place where you would have no idea that I taped you. Because of my knowledge of what you were going to do that day, would you say that you were not free in the decisions you made? I would think you'd be hard pressed to say that you didn't have any choice in what food you ate for breakfast, just because somewhere far away, I knew what you were going to choose. How would my foreknowledge influence your freedom of choice?

Cheers,
Brian

[Crackerus Dadderus]

Empire,

Why would god need satisfaction? Not being satisfied would leave him lacking something(satisfaction) - so then he wouldn't be this all encompassing creator. If you are truly the all-everything god, why would you care what choices we make, whether we love you? Why give life with conditions?

Now I'll also have to add that for a god that needs so much for us to choose to love him, he sure doesn't give us a whole lot to go off of. Why should only the generations of 2000 years ago and before get to see all his wonderous works? Why wouldn't you continue to show yourself so that we can all know you? If it's so important to you for us to love you, why wouldn't you continue to be as big a part of our life? I we just not good enough? Don't you think it's even a little funny that the farther science comes along, the less "miracles" there are. If you come back with some lame argument about the miracles of everyday life or that we choose not to see his signs - I want to see talking donkeys, burning bushes, raising the dead - something. He doesn't need to "make" me believe - just give me something to go off of.

[Crackerus Dadderus]

Empire,
And as far as the time machine, time travel is not possible. Until it is you should shelf that question. And actually, theists are the ones that claim free will - that's how they get out of all the problems with their god.

[Tenspace]

Welcome to the forum, Empire. :)

(since God is believed by some to be outside of time, he wouldn't need a time machine, as he's at all points in time)
Then God knows all past and future events, which negates free will.

Tenspace

[Empire]

First of all, thanks a lot for the welcome Tenspace :) I’m already getting the sense this will be as fun as when I debated the age of the earth with my former astronomy class mates. Needless to say, I spent a lot of time defending my position against an onslaught of opposing points of view. Anyway, back to the task at hand. First of all Crackerus, I don’t recall saying God needed satisfaction. I was simply giving an analogy for the futility of creating beings that have no choice but to love you. God in fact needs nothing. He is omnipotent and can speak anything into existence. Included in nothing, is that he does not need to be served by men. An appropriate passage from the bible is Acts 17:25 - "Neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing, seeing he giveth to all life, and breath, and all things." As for your next point, “If you are truly the all-everything god, why would you care what choices we make, whether we love you?” Well take that question, and ask it of a loving parent. If you had kids, would you care whether they loved you or not? I’m most certain any rational and loving human being would say a resounding "Yes!" to that question. I believe God created us and we are all his children, so of course he would want us to love him and follow him.

In regards to your next statement, well the Truth is out there if you search for it. I’ve been searching for a really long time. I’ve been all over the map from atheist to religious pluralist, and the more I searched, the more Christianity made sense to me. It shouldn’t be a matter of having to see proof of Gods existence through divine intervention or “talking donkeys [and] burning bushes”, but the proof is out there, it just requires some searching. I know that answer probably won’t satisfy you, because you’re probably pretty set in your beliefs. But until you allow yourself to be open to the possibilities, and search for the proof you want me to provide for you, you won’t find it.

As for your next point, well here’s my explanation. You said “And as far as the time machine, time travel is not possible. Until it is, you should shelf that question.” First off, I started that hypothetical situation by saying “imagine”, which implies that it was a hypothetical situation. It was merely an analogy for the reason I believe Gods omniscience does not negate free will. I even stated in the paragraph, “since God is believed by some to be outside of time, he wouldn’t need a time machine”. So whether time travel is possible or not, it does not have any effect on the weight of my analogy because the God in question is not bound by the laws of time, as it’s believed by most including me. Also, Theists don’t’ claim free will because it helps us get out of the problems with God. Most theists believe in free will because without choice there would be no point to creation, or for the bible and the path to salvation. Although, free will does aid in explaining certain things like the classic question, “If God is so good, why do bad things happen to good people?” Its (free wills) creation is not an excuse to help theists get out of problems with their God, it just happens to be a good explanation for a lot of the questions and problems believers and non-believers alike have with God and the way the world is.

Tenspace, I partially responded to your comment in my post to Ogmpoma, but I’ll elaborate further. First off, this is a rather hard topic to grasp because we’re looking at it from a linear temporal framework whereas God is outside of time. That aside, there are a few points I’d like you to contemplate:
1. If God knows all things, included in that is his knowledge of the choices we are going to make. By definition, his knowledge of our choices states that we will have the choice, and choice implies the ability to decide between different options, hence free will.
2. Also, your statement that “God knows all past and future events which negates free will” supposes that Gods foreknowledge of an event limits the event and choice of an individual. You are implying that there is an action by God upon the individual that negates his freedom to choose. Do you have any logical connection between God knowing what will happen, and the mind of the individual, so that the individual no longer has a choice? I think my videotape example from above explains this nicely. Could you really bring yourself to say that you didn’t have a choice in what you were going to do that day simply because I went back in time and therefore knew what you were going to do before you did it. It doesn’t really make sense to say that, does it? Well, at least it doesn’t to me.

Cheers,
Brian

[thomas]

Brian, I like your time travel argument a lot, I've been trying to find a way to verbalise what I think about omniscience and free-will and you just showed me the way to do it. Thanks !

I think the objection you are likely to get to the argument is that the fact that the videotape was viewed two days before the choice effectively removes the contingent futures at the time the choice is made, rendering it not a choice at all. Still, you're question to Ten is a good one. What is the mechanism by which foreknowledge effects choice ?

Welcome to the forum

[Philboid Studge]

No, torture is too good for unbelievers. A good Christian must KILL them.

Ye shall walk after the LORD your God, and fear him, and keep his commandments, and obey his voice, and ye shall serve him ... If thy brother, the son of thy mother, or thy son, or thy daughter, or the wife of thy bosom, or thy friend ... entice thee secretly, saying, Let us go and serve other gods ...[T]hou shalt surely kill him; thine hand shall be first upon him to put him to death, and afterwards the hand of all the people...And thou shalt stone him with stones, that he die; because he hath sought to thrust thee away from the LORD thy God...
God Frigging Almighty must have anticipated squeamish 'interpretations' of his commands, because He'd put the kibosh on them earlier, in Deut 4:2:

"Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you, neither shall ye diminish from it, that ye may keep the commandments of the LORD your God which I command you."
So any Christian who doesn't try to kill me is a God-damned sinner!

EDIT: And yes, the preferred form of execution in this case is to be stoned.

[Tenspace]

Tenspace, I partially responded to your comment in my post to Ogmpoma, but I’ll elaborate further. First off, this is a rather hard topic to grasp because we’re looking at it from a linear temporal framework whereas God is outside of time. That aside, there are a few points I’d like you to contemplate:
1. If God knows all things, included in that is his knowledge of the choices we are going to make. By definition, his knowledge of our choices states that we will have the choice, and choice implies the ability to decide between different options, hence free will.
2. Also, your statement that “God knows all past and future events which negates free will” supposes that Gods foreknowledge of an event limits the event and choice of an individual. You are implying that there is an action by God upon the individual that negates his freedom to choose. Do you have any logical connection between God knowing what will happen, and the mind of the individual, so that the individual no longer has a choice? I think my videotape example from above explains this nicely. Could you really bring yourself to say that you didn’t have a choice in what you were going to do that day simply because I went back in time and therefore knew what you were going to do before you did it. It doesn’t really make sense to say that, does it? Well, at least it doesn’t to me.

Cheers,
Brian
If God is outside of time, then how does he interface with our 3+1 existence? In other words, at least a portion of God would not be able to be outside of time in order to monitor what goes on in our universe.

1. But the choices are already realized if God is aware of all points in time. At the most, our free will would be an illusion.
2. Again, if god has the ability to discern events at any point in time, my choices are an illusion, because the choice would have already been made, in God's view. Time is not a linearly flowing river, it is a set of configurations connected by cause. From outside of our spacetime, as you posit God's existence, the entire configuration set can be viewed. There are causal connections between each slice of spacetime. If I am standing on my "worldline" (my path of existence through spacetime), as I look back, I will see my one path through history. If I look forward, I see many bifurcating paths; many potentials; many probabilities - the actualization of a future history path is not solidified until I make my choices, since I am bound within our spacetime. But, again, for an observer outside of our spacetime, they will see the paths, both past and future that I have taken.

Free will is God's way of letting us think that we are making our own choices, regardless of the overall structure of the universe and our place in it.

Tenspace

[Tenspace]

EDIT: And yes, the preferred form of execution in this case is to be stoned.
What a way to go!

::cough cough:: :: hack::

Hey Philboid, load up that Hindu Kush and pass the bong! I'm not dead yet! :)

Ten

[Philboid Studge]

Hey Philboid, load up that Hindu Kush and pass the bong! I'm not dead yet!
If God didn't want us to die stoned, He wouldn't have created cheeba. Or death. [/stoner logic]

EDIT: Did a diabolically delightful bong to commemorate post #666.

[TheSnake]

If God is outside of time, then how does he interface with our 3+1 existence? In other words, at least a portion of God would not be able to be outside of time in order to monitor what goes on in our universe.
I've imagined that god's got a blackboard, which is the universe. Then he's decided on a set of laws of nature and went about and drew a graph of all the objects in the universe at all times on the board. That way he'd be completely outside space and time. Even if time wasn't linear and had branches, it would only take a blackboard with higher dimensionality. He'd be omniscient and omnipotent from our perspective, but possibly lacking in mental capabilities.

In any case, if he's sufficiently intelligent to understand the consequences of his actions, he'd be aware of every decision we could/would ever make and if he's really omnipotent it'd make no difference to him if he'd change things or let them be the way they are. So it follows that everything has to be exactly the way god wants it to be. So if people go to hell and suffer for an eternity just for not believing that he exists, then that's exactly what he wants.

[Tenspace]

If God is outside of time, then how does he interface with our 3+1 existence? In other words, at least a portion of God would not be able to be outside of time in order to monitor what goes on in our universe.
I've imagined that god's got a blackboard, which is the universe. Then he's decided on a set of laws of nature and went about and drew a graph of all the objects in the universe at all times on the board. That way he'd be completely outside space and time. Even if time wasn't linear and had branches, it would only take a blackboard with higher dimensionality. He'd be omniscient and omnipotent from our perspective, but possibly lacking in mental capabilities.
We have deduced from the quantum theory that the very act of observing introduces interaction with the observed. How can He violate his own rules?

In any case, if he's sufficiently intelligent to understand the consequences of his actions, he'd be aware of every decision we could/would ever make and if he's really omnipotent it'd make no difference to him if he'd change things or let them be the way they are.
Then there are variables that are missing, to me anyway. If God can change the future, then he can change the past. This sort of plasticity goes beyond the structure of spacetime, and the effects of mass/energy, pressure, etc. If God can change the relative configurations of everything within our universe... well, you've just described how I feel when I play the Sims. ;)

Tenspace

[TheSnake]

We have deduced from the quantum theory that the very act of observing introduces interaction with the observed. How can He violate his own rules?
I don't know much about quantum theory, but the whole point was that god would be entirely outside his creation, the universe and it's laws, still he'd be able to change it at will. Also I'd say that you can't apply a scientific theory to the supernatural or metaphysical, but I guess that's a moot point, since people tend to think they can "know" something about suchs things anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter wether one claims to use magic or science. ;)

Then there are variables that are missing, to me anyway. If God can change the future, then he can change the past.
Sure, I was just trying not to over complicate, the same principle essentially applies, the universe is what god wants it to be.

[Tenspace]

We have deduced from the quantum theory that the very act of observing introduces interaction with the observed. How can He violate his own rules?
I don't know much about quantum theory, but the whole point was that god would be entirely outside his creation, the universe and it's laws, still he'd be able to change it at will. Also I'd say that you can't apply a scientific theory to the supernatural or metaphysical, but I guess that's a moot point, since people tend to think they can "know" something about suchs things anyway, so I suppose it doesn't matter wether one claims to use magic or science. ;)
The proverbial crux of the biscuit, right there. God would have to invoke unnatural means in order to observe or interact with us.

Ten

[Crackerus Dadderus]

If you had kids, would you care whether they loved you or not? I’m most certain any rational and loving human being would say a resounding "Yes!" to that question. I believe God created us and we are all his children, so of course he would want us to love him and follow him.

In regards to your next statement, well the Truth is out there if you search for it. I’ve been searching for a really long time. I’ve been all over the map from atheist to religious pluralist, and the more I searched, the more Christianity made sense to me. It shouldn’t be a matter of having to see proof of Gods existence through divine intervention or “talking donkeys [and] burning bushes”, but the proof is out there, it just requires some searching. I know that answer probably won’t satisfy you, because you’re probably pretty set in your beliefs. But until you allow yourself to be open to the possibilities, and search for the proof you want me to provide for you, you won’t find it.

As for your next point, well here’s my explanation. You said “And as far as the time machine, time travel is not possible. Until it is, you should shelf that question.” First off, I started that hypothetical situation by saying “imagine”, which implies that it was a hypothetical situation. It was merely an analogy for the reason I believe Gods omniscience does not negate free will. I even stated in the paragraph, “since God is believed by some to be outside of time, he wouldn’t need a time machine”. So whether time travel is possible or not, it does not have any effect on the weight of my analogy because the God in question is not bound by the laws of time, as it’s believed by most including me. Also, Theists don’t’ claim free will because it helps us get out of the problems with God. Most theists believe in free will because without choice there would be no point to creation, or for the bible and the path to salvation. Although, free will does aid in explaining certain things like the classic question, “If God is so good, why do bad things happen to good people?” Its (free wills) creation is not an excuse to help theists get out of problems with their God, it just happens to be a good explanation for a lot of the questions and problems believers and non-believers alike have with God and the way the world is.
1. If my kids are happy - I don't care if they don't love me.
2. So God wants? Still doesn't separate from what I questioned the first time - makes him awfully human doesn't it?
3. You're assuming I didn't look. I did - but what I didn't do was needlessly assign divine properties to natural things.
4. I know you're question was hypothetical and that doesn't change my point. Time travel will never be possible. Even if it does, you will still exist as you do IN time, just be able to move around. At no point will you exist outside of time. Ten answered my other problems with that weak analogy.
5. Needing a point to creation seems like a problem with your beliefs from an objective standpoint. You're assuming there's a point to creation, the bible is true and there is a path to salvation. All of that falls apart without your precious free will.

[Empire]

I forgot to subscribe to this topic, good thing i checked it out now. Unfortunately it's 2 in the morning, and i'm not planning on staying up till 6 again, so for now, I'll just pose a few comment/questions... Wiggle your toes, or don't wiggle your toes, the choice is yours. If you believe you've made a choice by either performing or not performing that action, you believe in free will. If you think that somehow your action or non-action in regards to toe wiggling was somehow caused by its antecedants, here's another exercise I like to use in trying to prove free will. Let your imagination run wild and think of 10 different things. Can you explain the randomness of your thoughts just popping into existence. (I have the fealing somones going to bring up physiological processes in the brain that caused the thoughts)...

Here's something I've always wondered, and since I'm sort of on the topic of conciousness and thoughts, here it goes. How does one who believes in evolution explain how mind evolved from a strictly matter universe?, considering those two things are utterly-unlike each other.

Sorry this post is kind of short and didn't address a bunch of the stuff that's been said, I'll try and get around to the rest tomorrow.

Cheers,
Brian

[Philboid Studge]

Hi Empire,

Here's a thread on free will (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=560) that might be useful for you to peruse before slogging on here. It isn't a thread so much as an infinite loop, as the same arguments are made again and again (often by the same posters), a state of affairs that is starting to rear its ugly head here.

[TheSnake]

The proverbial crux of the biscuit, right there. God would have to invoke unnatural means in order to observe or interact with us.
Did I miss something? Isn't god supposed to be unnatural? Wouldn't be much of a god if he was natural.

[Empire]

Hi Empire,
Here's a thread on free will (http://ravingatheist.com/forum/viewtopic.php?id=560) that might be useful for you to peruse before slogging on here. It isn't a thread so much as an infinite loop, as the same arguments are made again and again (often by the same posters), a state of affairs that is starting to rear its ugly head here.
Thanks Philboid, I'll take a look. I know there are lots of other forums and debates out there we could all just read, and save us the time of posing questions and answers on here that may have been answered somewhere else. So much of the philosophical issues we discuss have been discussed for ages before us, but I think a lot of the point and fun in participating in these forums is to find the answers and challenging ourselves, and others. Since I'm new here, I don't know which of you have discussed which topics. Anyhoot, This Free Will debate is certainly one in which both sides have vexing arguments.

Incase I didn’t comment on it yet, thanks for the welcome Thomas :). Unfortunately I can’t take full credit for that analogy, it was a topic discussed many times in my numerous philosophy classes. But you’re welcome all the same :).

Tenspace, in regards to your comments…

Well actually it’s kind of funny that I’m taking up defending free will in this instance, because for a while now I’ve been a heavy supporter of determinism. It seems as though everything is caused by its antecedant cause, even stemming to our most basic beliefs about the universe. We believe what makes sense to us, and believe what makes sense to us because of, well, many factors. But then there’s that whole bit about believing in God, and God being all knowing, and trying to reconcile whether foreknowledge of an event means that the free will you have to choose is really an illusion. The verdict is still out on that, I haven't come across any hard facts that have swayed me profoundly in either direction.

As for part two… “bifurcating”, nice word bud :), I’ll have to add that one to my list of smart sounding words. I’m sure the guys at work who have nicknamed me brain for my tendancies for sesquipedality, will have a field day when I start using that term :) hehe. Anyways, I think you may have answered this question with bringing up quantum mechanics, but could you explain what the mechanism is by which foreknowledge effects choice. Or since my knowledge of quantum mechanics is quite lacking, just give the main ideas behind how observing something affects it. Thanks man.

Now Cracker, onto your points.

1. I’m still unsure how you can claim that if you loved your kids and they didn’t love you back, that you wouldn’t care if they loved you back or not. I think you may be some special case, but I wonder if others are willing to stake the same claim as you. I think one of the hardest things to deal with emotionally is unrequited love. If you’ve ever loved a girl and not had the feelings returned, you’d know what I’m talking about.
2. Yes God wants, I don’t see how that makes him “awfully human.” God also loves, and displays many human characteristics; we are after all made in his image. The fact remains he doesn’t need anything, and I think that was the point of this line of questioning.
3. Fair enough, but I wouldn’t call it needless, as an intelligent creator is a more reasonable explanation for some of the bigger questions. However, since you’re an atheist you won’t agree with me, so that’s a moot point.
4. As for the time travel thing, yes I’ll probably never travel back in time, but the principle is still there for both analogies. God being outside of time simply allows him to know what will happen before it happens, just as traveling back in time and watching the video tape of future actions will accomplish the same thing. The analogy wasn’t weak; I think it articulates how some theists view Gods foreknowledge of the choices we’ll make.
5. Yes, without free will there may not be a point to creation, and there may not be a path to salvation. “All of that falls apart without your precious free will.” No ones proved the non-existence of free will, and no one will ever be able to either. As for “Needing a point to creation seems like a problem with your beliefs from an objective standpoint.” I think needing a point to creation is just part of searching for answers to life’s great mysteries.

Cheers,

Brian

[Tenspace]

The proverbial crux of the biscuit, right there. God would have to invoke unnatural means in order to observe or interact with us.
Did I miss something? Isn't god supposed to be unnatural? Wouldn't be much of a god if he was natural.
I mean that if he's outside of our existence, he has no interface with us, therefore he would have to break his own laws in order to observe. Of course, that's the whole deal about God, right? He can do what he pleases and no physical laws apply to him.

Kind of like Ken Lay. :)

Tenspace

[thomas]

Alternatively, it should be theoretically possible to observe God's intervention in the universe, because there must be some material effect to observe and measure. Otherwise, it would fail the test of intervention. Large scale example would be the burning bush or the parting of the Red Sea. It doesn't make sense to say physical laws don't apply to Him, in that circumstance, because physical laws are a reflection of what we observe and not vice-versa.

The interface problem for the omniscient being is really similar to the one a dualist has with explaining how the soul interfaces with the human brain. Only a little simpler because the mechanism only has to be one way. I guess you would just posit a parallel being ( the mind of God ) that had knowledge of each atoms placement at any time, and say that the interface mechanism is by definition something that cannot be observed and therefore not known.

This seems to mean that we could not work out for ourselves if God was omniscient unless He tells us or we make a guess based on partial information from interventions. I think Christianity does the latter.

[Crackerus Dadderus]

Now Cracker, onto your points.

1. I’m still unsure how you can claim that if you loved your kids and they didn’t love you back, that you wouldn’t care if they loved you back or not. I think you may be some special case, but I wonder if others are willing to stake the same claim as you. I think one of the hardest things to deal with emotionally is unrequited love. If you’ve ever loved a girl and not had the feelings returned, you’d know what I’m talking about.
2. Yes God wants, I don’t see how that makes him “awfully human.” God also loves, and displays many human characteristics; we are after all made in his image. The fact remains he doesn’t need anything, and I think that was the point of this line of questioning.
3. Fair enough, but I wouldn’t call it needless, as an intelligent creator is a more reasonable explanation for some of the bigger questions. However, since you’re an atheist you won’t agree with me, so that’s a moot point.
4. As for the time travel thing, yes I’ll probably never travel back in time, but the principle is still there for both analogies. God being outside of time simply allows him to know what will happen before it happens, just as traveling back in time and watching the video tape of future actions will accomplish the same thing. The analogy wasn’t weak; I think it articulates how some theists view Gods foreknowledge of the choices we’ll make.
5. Yes, without free will there may not be a point to creation, and there may not be a path to salvation. “All of that falls apart without your precious free will.” No ones proved the non-existence of free will, and no one will ever be able to either. As for “Needing a point to creation seems like a problem with your beliefs from an objective standpoint.” I think needing a point to creation is just part of searching for answers to life’s great mysteries.

Cheers,

Brian
Empire
1. I do think I have a different view on unrequited love as many other people. I honestly wouldn't care if my kids decide they don't love me. If they are happy, I'm happy. I have loved and not had it returned, but I got to a point where I realized that the love I felt was sufficient in and of itself.
2. We will disagree on whether or not god wanting or needing detracts from his greatness so we will have to leave that point alone. In my view, a want for something is a lack of that something, which to me doesn't fit with the widely accepted idea of god being all-everything.
3. Agreed.
4. Weak was a cheap shot - I apologize. I should have said not an accurate enough comparison. I understand that's how most theists will see that argument, and my point was that you will not have an all encompassing picture of the future. You will still exist IN time, and thus may in fact change the future - resulting in the lack of foreknowledge. And as it is being discussed in other topics, MY personal belief is that foreknowledge removes the actuality of free will and leaves only the appearance.
5. It is impossible to prove either the existence or non-existence of free will. Again, as is always the case, it's not on me to disprove your claims. I guess my point is that belief in christianity relies entirely on believing in things which cannot be proved. Needing a point to creation is only part of that search if you already believe in creation. I personally believe there is no point to life/existence other than to continue life/existence. Needing a point is nowhere in my search.

In the future I'll try to stay as civil as possible in my replies.

[Tenspace]

Alternatively, it should be theoretically possible to observe God's intervention in the universe, because there must be some material effect to observe and measure. Otherwise, it would fail the test of intervention. Large scale example would be the burning bush or the parting of the Red Sea. It doesn't make sense to say physical laws don't apply to Him, in that circumstance, because physical laws are a reflection of what we observe and not vice-versa.
That's my point. If our physical description of nature is right, then we would detect external observance. Your examples are macroscopic (and unfortunately, minimally documented). Detection would be at a submicroscopic level, where the weirdness exists . Imagine being a character in a video game trying to analyze the pixels and associated devices which create his reality.

I shy away from "God & Science" books, mainly because they seem to overly reflect the ideology of the author, so it's not my forte.

However, I don't think we'll find God in the Higgs scalar boson, but hey, maybe he's in the probabilistic details. :)

Tenspace

[TheSnake]

This seems to mean that we could not work out for ourselves if God was omniscient unless He tells us or we make a guess based on partial information from interventions. I think Christianity does the latter.
I would say Christianity does the former. The Bible says god's all knowing, but the passages on miracles and other intervetions, like the Flood, imply gods lack of knowledge, good judgement or even common sense in some cases.

[Empire]

1. I do think I have a different view on unrequited love as many other people. I honestly wouldn't care if my kids decide they don't love me. If they are happy, I'm happy. I have loved and not had it returned, but I got to a point where I realized that the love I felt was sufficient in and of itself.
Must be nice to see things like that, I wish at this point I did.

You will still exist IN time, and thus may in fact change the future - resulting in the lack of foreknowledge.
Good point, that is a problem with the analogy. How would I reformulate it without that problem? I suppose I could say the guy taped the day in the life, then went outside of time and watched it, and so knew what was going to happen before it happened, because from outside of time, theoretically, he could see the whole timeline. But that makes it a tad bit less relateable. lol

I guess my point is that belief in christianity relies entirely on believing in things which cannot be proved.
I never thought of christianity like that, interesting.

Cheers,

Brian

[Crackerus Dadderus]

Good point, that is a problem with the analogy. How would I reformulate it without that problem? I suppose I could say the guy taped the day in the life, then went outside of time and watched it, and so knew what was going to happen before it happened, because from outside of time, theoretically, he could see the whole timeline. But that makes it a tad bit less relateable. lol
I wish I could help, but I don't believe it possible to know the future and still have choice.

[thomas]

This seems to mean that we could not work out for ourselves if God was omniscient unless He tells us or we make a guess based on partial information from interventions. I think Christianity does the latter.
I would say Christianity does the former. The Bible says god's all knowing, but the passages on miracles and other intervetions, like the Flood, imply gods lack of knowledge, good judgement or even common sense in some cases.
Can you give me chapter and verse on where the Bible says that God is omniscient ? I think it can be deduced but don't think it's very clear to say the least.

[thomas]

That's my point. If our physical description of nature is right, then we would detect external observance. Your examples are macroscopic (and unfortunately, minimally documented). Detection would be at a submicroscopic level, where the weirdness exists . Imagine being a character in a video game trying to analyze the pixels and associated devices which create his reality.
I'm not sure that we would detect external observance. Like I say, for observance there has to be an observer to universe interface which is necessarily undetectable to us ( because it can't be part of the universe or there would have to be another interface to it.......ad infinitum ).

We could detect external intervention however, but there is no way we could distinguish it from events that didn't have any intervention, other than for the intervener to tell us what was going on.

[Empire]

This seems to mean that we could not work out for ourselves if God was omniscient unless He tells us or we make a guess based on partial information from interventions. I think Christianity does the latter.
I would say Christianity does the former. The Bible says god's all knowing, but the passages on miracles and other intervetions, like the Flood, imply gods lack of knowledge, good judgement or even common sense in some cases.
Can you give me chapter and verse on where the Bible says that God is omniscient ? I think it can be deduced but don't think it's very clear to say the least.
____
1John 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
1John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1John 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, [then] have we confidence toward God.
____
John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
John 16:29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
John 16:30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
____

I found this page after finding those passages in the bible...
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/is_god_omniscient.html

[thomas]

I found this page after finding those passages in the bible...
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/is_god_omniscient.html
Yes, and that site answers the question "is god omniscient" with "not necessarily" and shows how "all things" in other context clearly doesn't mean the "all things for all time" that is required for omniscience.

[Crackerus Dadderus]

Is god omniscient to you thomas?

[Empire]

I found this page after finding those passages in the bible...
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/is_god_omniscient.html
Yes, and that site answers the question "is god omniscient" with "not necessarily" and shows how "all things" in other context clearly doesn't mean the "all things for all time" that is required for omniscience.
yep, i know, just thought you may like to read it :)

[thomas]

Is god omniscient to you thomas?
Instinctively I would answer yes to that question. But lately I've been thinking about why I think that and how I would know it, and now I'm not so sure. It often happens like that when you dig below the surface of issues. Don't you find ?

[Crackerus Dadderus]

wow thomas - I thought you were lying about being open to changing your mind - glad to see you were telling the truth

Don't I find - that's how I found atheism.

[TheSnake]

Luke 19:27: "But those mine enemies, which would not that I should reign over them, bring hither, and slay [them] before me."

[calpurnpiso]

I would say Christianity does the former. The Bible says god's all knowing, but the passages on miracles and other intervetions, like the Flood, imply gods lack of knowledge, good judgement or even common sense in some cases.
Can you give me chapter and verse on where the Bible says that God is omniscient ? I think it can be deduced but don't think it's very clear to say the least.
____
1John 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
1John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1John 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, [then] have we confidence toward God.
____
John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
John 16:29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
John 16:30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
____

I found this page after finding those passages in the bible...
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/is_god_omniscient.html
ROTFLMAO.....what about this "truth" in the "Greatest lie Ever Told", the babble?:

From matthew 27: 52-54

"And the graves were opened' and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the son of god"

AHH, can we say: The Night of the Ancient living Dead?...:)

[calpurnpiso]

So, if the babble has OBVIOUS Lies and absurd idiocies, how can it represent ANY truth? Lies are EVERYWHERE, and accepting them as true only show symptoms of distorted perception and faulty neuro tramsmiters /receptors. The ONLY obvious result of this neurological anomaly is its abnormal release of dopamine and serotonin causing euphoria as in children, drug user and mentally retarded....

Who needs religion when there are psychoactive drugs that PRODUCE the same feelings and have almost identical results? Schizophrenia and temporal lobe epilepsy cause also similar religious-psychosis symptoms....:)

[Empire]

Yah, but why waste money on drugs if you can get religious-psychosis for free. I take the more economical route.

[inthesownd]

Yah, but why waste money on drugs if you can get religious-psychosis for free. I take the more economical route.
...funny. whats not funny, or rather incorrect, about that analogy is that drug users tend to do drugs alone. They dont actively seek out and choose to get sober/random others to be addicts with them, en mass.:cool:

[calpurnpiso]

Yah, but why waste money on drugs if you can get religious-psychosis for free. I take the more economical route.
...funny. whats not funny, or rather incorrect, about that analogy is that drug users tend to do drugs alone. They dont actively seek out and choose to get sober/random others to be addicts with them, en mass.:cool:
It all depends on the psychoactive drug ingested. Some drugs like amanita muscaria, peganum harmala, anadenanthera makes the person seek solitude to enjoy the trip ALONE. These people usually go to a bathroom. It is quiet, dark and th toilet is there for vomiting. This is not to say that small groups of devoted people ( i,e native Americans like Dine et al) would gather to experience the godly visions. So, it is quite accurate some rather be alone when ingesting drugs. Many of the church fathers did this (circumstancial evidence). One must read the writings of the Christ-psychotic Hildegard von Bingen ( 12th Century) to realize this...:)

[ghoulslime]

Can you give me chapter and verse on where the Bible says that God is omniscient ? I think it can be deduced but don't think it's very clear to say the least.
____
1John 3:19 And hereby we know that we are of the truth, and shall assure our hearts before him.
1John 3:20 For if our heart condemn us, God is greater than our heart, and knoweth all things.
1John 3:21 Beloved, if our heart condemn us not, [then] have we confidence toward God.
____
John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I leave the world, and go to the Father.
John 16:29 His disciples said unto him, Lo, now speakest thou plainly, and speakest no proverb.
John 16:30 Now are we sure that thou knowest all things, and needest not that any man should ask thee: by this we believe that thou camest forth from God.
____

I found this page after finding those passages in the bible...
http://members.aol.com/JAlw/is_god_omniscient.html
ROTFLMAO.....what about this "truth" in the "Greatest lie Ever Told", the babble?:

From matthew 27: 52-54

"And the graves were opened' and many bodies of the saints which slept arose,
And came out of the graves after his resurrection and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many.
now when the centurion, and they that were with him, watching Jesus saw the earthquake, and those things that were done, they feared greatly, saying, Truly this was the son of god"

AHH, can we say: The Night of the Ancient living Dead?...:)
:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol:

We'll swallow your soul! We'll swallow your soul!

[ghoulslime]

Is god omniscient to you thomas?
Ghoulslime: Hey, god, which hand am I going to slap your face with?
God: Uhh...left?
Ghoulslime: WHACK! Wrong, biatch!

Ghoulslime: Hey, god, which hand am I going to slap your face with?
God: Duhh...right?
Ghoulslime: WHACK! Wrong, biatch!

:lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol::lol: :lol::lol::lol::P

[honeybadger]

"He hoped and prayed that there wasn't an afterlife. Then he realized there was a contradiction involved here and merely hoped that there wasn't an afterlife. Douglas Adams"

lol! Douglas Adams rocks!

[calpurnpiso]

I think the Christ-psychotics that visit this Raving Atheist site must also be Neuro-Machochistic, for they constantly get slammed with empirical hitters and trampled under the weight of aposterioru juggernauts.....hmmm...they, in truly christ-psychotic tradition, love suffering, give the other side of the brain so it can also get smacked with logic and facts.

Christians are undoubtedly masochistic. I think after so much sadism throughout millennia, they are willing to take it in the name of Penis-Christ....:)