Evangelical Christians

[F250 28764]

8 minutes ago, Pancho Negro said:

 

 

[Mole 4330]

When a stranger sojourns with you in your land, you shall not do him wrong. You shall treat the stranger who sojourns with you as the native among you, and you shall love him as yourself, for you were strangers in the land of Egypt: I am the Lord your God.

Cursed be anyone who perverts the justice due to the sojourner, the fatherless, and the widow.

The Lord watches over the sojourners; he upholds the widow and the fatherless, but the way of the wicked he brings to ruin.

[BrickHorn 18217]

On 5/23/2018 at 10:11 PM, Aphelion said:

Do you view causation as necessarily dependent on temporal ordering of causes and effects?  I think this is a primary point we disagree on which leads to our opposing views on the matter.  Also, you have to view the problem from specific temporal perspectives.  It makes no sense to say before and after in a general applicable manner.  You have to specify before or after from an specific perspective - either the perspective of a given agent in our universe or from the perspective of Ω.  Actually, you have to specify temporal perspectives even when solely discussing physical entities in our universe, as their is no absolute time.  

Also, which premise did I ignore/write out?  Not sure which you are referring to.

Causation and an order of events from cause to effect is necessary for the concept of free will.  Free will cannot exist unless a present choice causes a future event.  And it cannot exist if the future is determined at point of the decision. Essentially, free will requires an arrow of time, and it requires an asymmetry in time such that the future is not determined. 

That is fundamentally why the conundrum cannot be resolved by placing God “outside of time.”  It ignores the nature of time required to support the notion of free will.  

You are also ignoring the chronology of the claim we are seeking to prove true or false, which is that free will and omniscience both exist at the same time.  A God outside of time cannot be said to exist at a given time.  Thus, it is nonsensical to claim that free will can exist at the same time as a God outside of time.  That claim simply does not respond to the question.

Like I said, the God-outside-time approach is a cheat.  

Edited May 27, 2018 by BrickHorn

[Guest]

2 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

Causation and an order of events from cause to effect is necessary for the concept of free will.  Free will cannot exist unless a present choice causes a future event.  And it cannot exist if the future is determined at point of the decision. Essentially, free will requires an arrow of time, and it requires an asymmetry in time such that the future is not determined. 

That is fundamentally why the conundrum cannot be resolved by placing God “outside of time.”  It ignores the nature of time required to support the notion of free will.  

You are also ignoring the chronology of the claim we are seeking to prove true or false, which is that free will and omniscience both exist at the same time.  A God outside of time cannot be said to exist at a given time.  Thus, it is nonsensical to claim that free will can exist at the same time as a God outside of time.  That claim simply does not respond to the question.

Like I said, the God-outside-time approach is a cheat.  

Causation and an order of events from cause to effect is necessary for the concept of free will.

I agree that causation requires order, but I do not agree that it necessarily requires a temporal ordering.  I'll give an example to prove why.  9 is not a prime number because it is divisible by 3.  So we can write F[3x3=9] ► N[9 is not prime].   There is no temporal order here because neither of these facts happen at a given time in our universe; they are timeless.  Causes and effects can exist outside of a temporal framework.

Free will cannot exist unless a present choice causes a future event.  Essentially, free will requires an arrow of time, and it requires an asymmetry in time such that the future is not determined.

I agree that this is true on our universal timeline for events that happen in our universe.  I also believe that it is the case that from our perspective the future is not determined and that we are free to decide what we will do when the future becomes the present.  One's perspective is the critical point that you don't consider.  From our perspective as agents bound in this physical universe, the future is undecided and undetermined.  Now you may say that from the perspective of Ω the future is determined and so this would then effect & bind our future.  But our perspective is what matters for our free agency; the knowledge of Ω has no causal effect on our decisions.  The knowledge of Ω is effected by what we do; we are not bound to do what Ω knows.  

To give an example, you can read the Hobbit book and learn about middle earth and the events that transpired there.  However, you do not exist at a location or time in their world.  Furthermore, nothing you learn about their world has any effect on it whatsoever.  The events that happen in middle earth are the cause and your knowledge is the effect.  We could write M[Bilbo decides to help dwarves, tx on middle earth timeline] ► B[BrickHorn acquires knowledge of M].   You are not on middle earth timeline and so you did not learn about Bilbo's decision at any given middle earth time, just like you weren't physically located in the shire when you learn about Bilbo doing activities there.  Now I can ask, did you learning about Bilbo's decision to help the dwarves effect the story or did what happened in the story effect your knowledge?   

A God outside of time cannot be said to exist at a given time.

This partly agrees with the point I'm making.  God is not bound within the physical universe and therefore does not exist solely at a given time or place in our universe.  So in a sense I agree, but it can be misleading to say that "God cannot exist at a given time" without specifying what time you are talking about.  There is no a such thing as a absolute time that permeates all reality.  What we understand as time is a physical feature of our physical universe.  

Thus, it is nonsensical to claim that free will can exist at the same time as a God outside of time.  

Instead of the phrase "outside of time" I think it is more accurate to word it as "not bound to specific locations in our universal spacetime."  It seems that you sometimes appeal to a notion of absolute time; time is nothing more that a physical future of our physical universe (I'm aware I'm repeating myself).  Ω would of course not be directly impacted in any way by the passage of our time because Ω is not a physical being in our physical universe

Like I said, the God-outside-time approach is a cheat.

No, it isn't.  I'm under no obligation to use your premises, especially when I can provide valid counterexamples to those premises. 

To give one more analogy:  Suppose you were to come to my house one day and you saw a marvelous looking type of crystalline globe on my shelf. Inside the globe you can see what looks like the lives of many characters played out from beginning to end, with the beginning starting in one side and ending on the other. You ask me about it and I explain that this globe is a very special type and that each of the characters in the globe are sapient and perceive their lives as just as real as our own.  While we perceive their world as 3 space dimensions, from their perspective they see only two space dimensions and live their lives along a single time dimension. Though they perceive their own world as having 2 space dimensions and being in motion just like our own, what we see is a static, crystalline 3D globe.

You then point to some spot within the globe and ask “Are we in their past, present, or future at this point in their world?” This question makes no sense as there is no past or future, before or after for us relative to a static globe. Then you ask why the internals of the global are shaped the exact structure that they are shaped. I explain that the internal lives & paths of the characters that we see are in part shaped by the decisions of the characters themselves. Now suppose two characters in the globe consider our existence.  One says "if such beings did exist, then it must mean that we have no choice in the future, since we must walk the path that they see." The other character could respond "no, they must see the path we decide to walk."  

[David Dennison 18851]

Why do you believe in God?

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

Causation and an order of events from cause to effect is necessary for the concept of free will.  Free will cannot exist unless a present choice causes a future event.  And it cannot exist if the future is determined at point of the decision. Essentially, free will requires an arrow of time, and it requires an asymmetry in time such that the future is not determined. 
That is fundamentally why the conundrum cannot be resolved by placing God “outside of time.”  It ignores the nature of time required to support the notion of free will.  
You are also ignoring the chronology of the claim we are seeking to prove true or false, which is that free will and omniscience both exist at the same time.  A God outside of time cannot be said to exist at a given time.  Thus, it is nonsensical to claim that free will can exist at the same time as a God outside of time.  That claim simply does not respond to the question.
Like I said, the God-outside-time approach is a cheat.  

But this is a very silly argument. You are trying to dispute the existent of an omniscient supernatural being the way you might argue the existence of an apple, or your mom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[HenryJames 66038]

Your mom believed in God last night.

[BrickHorn 18217]

2 hours ago, Bozo_Casanova said:

But this is a very silly argument. You are trying to dispute the existent of an omniscient supernatural being the way you might argue the existence of an apple, or your mom.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I’m not the one that believes in either free will or an omniscient god.  But plenty of people believe in both, and THEY make claims about what those things are.  Claims that implicate logic. 

Once someone claims something exists and has certain properties, those claims are subject to logical analysis.  

Aleph won’t dispute that.  What he does, instead, is redefine God in a way that both cheats the question and foresakes basic precepts of most theistic religions.  Specifically, he relegates god to a hypothesized realm from which He can have no interaction with our universe.  

He also gets wrapped up in red herrings, like the prime number example.  To the extent a mathematical fact “causes” a number to fulfill a mathematical definition, that “cause” is of a completely different sort than the kind of cause required for free will.  Free will only exists if one kind of physical event (a choice) results in a specific outcome that was not determined until the first physical event occurred.  That is a very specific type of causality, and the math analogy is a complete red herring.  

Aleph knows that.  But like I’ve said before, he’s not interested in following logic to the right conclusion.  He’s more interested in concocting clever and complex, but ultimately flawed, arguments that might distract others into agreeing with him.  Not sure what the satisfaction is in that, but maybe that’s why I left the Church when I figured out religion is just silly superstition and illogic.    

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

4 hours ago, HenryJames said:

Your mom believed in God last night.

While she was doing the devil's business. 

[XYZ 2154]

Who’s Aleph?

[Nivek 16923]

26 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Who’s Aleph?

Someone with too much free time.

 

[El Diablo 4232]

41 minutes ago, XYZ said:

Who’s Aleph?

It's BrickHorn.

/longgame

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

I’m not the one that believes in either free will or an omniscient god.  But plenty of people believe in both, and THEY make claims about what those things are.  Claims that implicate logic. 
Once someone claims something exists and has certain properties, those claims are subject to logical analysis.  
Aleph won’t dispute that.  What he does, instead, is redefine God in a way that both cheats the question and foresakes basic precepts of most theistic religions.  Specifically, he relegates god to a hypothesized realm from which He can have no interaction with our universe.  
He also gets wrapped up in red herrings, like the prime number example.  To the extent a mathematical fact “causes” a number to fulfill a mathematical definition, that “cause” is of a completely different sort than the kind of cause required for free will.  Free will only exists if one kind of physical event (a choice) results in a specific outcome that was not determined until the first physical event occurred.  That is a very specific type of causality, and the math analogy is a complete red herring.  
Aleph knows that.  But like I’ve said before, he’s not interested in following logic to the right conclusion.  He’s more interested in concocting clever and complex, but ultimately flawed, arguments that might distract others into agreeing with him.  Not sure what the satisfaction is in that, but maybe that’s why I left the Church when I figured out religion is just silly superstition and illogic.    

As illogical as arguing against the existence of an omniscient supernatural being on the basis of reason? Lolz.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[softlynow 1813]

I would posit that the qualities of a supernatural being’s creations are reflections of that being’s essence. OU exists therefore God sucks.

 

 

[pyrohornIII 4814]

Anybody see anything else on this?   It's a Post article linked through MSN. 

https://www.msn.com/en-ca/news/us/‘this-is-not-of-god’-when-anti-trump-evangelicals-confront-their-brethren/ar-AAxGbyq?ocid=spartanntp

‘This Is Not of God’: When Anti-Trump Evangelicals Confront Their Brethren

Spoiler

LYNCHBURG, Va. — The night before Shane Claiborne came to town to preach at a Christian revival, he received a letter from the chief of police at Liberty University warning that if he set foot on the property, he would be arrested for trespassing and face up to 12 months in jail and a $2,500 fine.

At first glance, Mr. Claiborne hardly appeared a threat to Liberty University, a dominant force in Lynchburg, Va., and a powerful engine in evangelical Christianity. Wearing baggy clothes that he sews himself, Mr. Claiborne preaches the gospel, lives among the poor and befriends prisoners on death row, modeling his ministry on the life of Jesus.

But to the leaders of Liberty, he was a menace to their campus. He and his national network of liberal evangelicals, called the Red Letter Christians, were holding a revival meeting to protest in Liberty’s backyard. Their target: Jerry Falwell Jr., Liberty’s president and a man who has played a pivotal role in forging the alliance between white evangelicals and Donald J. Trump, who won 81 percent of their vote.

Mr. Claiborne and his group are the other evangelicals. The Red Letter Christians, a reference to the words of Jesus printed in some Bibles in red type, are not the evangelicals invited for interviews on Fox News or MSNBC. They don’t align neatly with either political party. But they have fierce moral and theological objections to those evangelicals who have latched onto Mr. Trump and the Republican Party.

“Let’s go where the Christians are, go where toxic Christianity lives,” Mr. Claiborne said last year, when proposing the idea for a revival in Lynchburg at an annual retreat for the Red Letter Christians.

The revival last month was the most energetic of several recent attempts by Christians in various camps to confront what they see as Mr. Trump’s “court evangelicals” selling out the faith. The critics have written columns, and a book called “Still Evangelical?” They convened a closed-door summit last month at Wheaton College. A number of bereaved, eminent elders plan a procession to the White House soon to hand over their manifesto, “Reclaiming Jesus: A Confession of Faith in a Time of Crisis.”

Mr. Claiborne and his group were far more audacious, but they also faced disappointment, resistance and fear. They were taking on Lynchburg, a company town where Liberty University is the biggest employer. Their “Red Letter Revival” revealed the state of the evangelical church in 2018: The loudest voices and institutional power and money are with Mr. Trump; the dissenters are fired-up, underfunded and scattered; and the vast majority of pastors are silent for fear of dividing their congregations or risking their jobs.

“There is another gospel in our country right now, and it is the gospel of Trump,” Mr. Claiborne preached at the revival in his Tennessee drawl. “It doesn’t look much like the gospel of Jesus.”

Lynchburg sits at the heart of pro-Trump evangelical Christianity. Liberty University’s commencement speaker last year was Mr. Trump, a personal friend of Mr. Falwell’s. Fox News hosts are frequent speakers at chapel services.

Mr. Trump has retained the loyalty of conservative white evangelicals because he is delivering on their political priorities: appointing conservative judges, moving the American Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and allowing religious entities to opt out of serving gay people or providing birth control in insurance plans. This record has enabled them to look past Mr. Trump’s personal scandals, including allegations of extramarital affairs.

But Red Letter Christians and other evangelicals have increasingly become frustrated that their church appears to be endorsing Mr. Trump’s program of deporting immigrants, fanning racial tension and passing a tax deal benefiting the rich.

“This is not of God,” thundered Barbara Williams-Skinner, an influential black evangelical elder in Washington, D.C., as the audience stood and clapped at the revival. “This is not worthy of our savior. This is not what he died for.”

Beginning in January, Don Golden, the executive director of the Red Letter Christians, visited Lynchburg seven times in three months to try to recruit like-minded leaders and Liberty students.

Mr. Golden had done refugee and missionary work in 70 countries. At age 51, with three daughters in college, he had left behind a fat salary in large ministries he called “Evangelical Inc.” and was on contract for the Red Letter Christians, without health insurance. Each morning he prayed to God to help him make it through the day without a mishap.

In Lynchburg, Mr. Golden began following the approach of the mass revivals honed for decades by the Rev. Billy Graham, in which organizers from out of town recruited local ministers to help turn out crowds and engage new believers. But Mr. Golden quickly learned how challenging his task would be.

When the president of Lynchburg College, Kenneth R. Garren, learned that some of his chaplains and faculty had hosted a Red Letter meeting on campus, he told them the college could not sponsor the event or host meetings.

“We didn’t want to take sides. We have a fine relationship with Liberty,” said Michael Jones, a spokesman for Lynchburg College, also a Christian school.

Three days before the revival, Mr. Golden met for breakfast with a leader of a local evangelical church in the dim, empty back room of a downtown cafe, so as not to be seen together. The church leader, who spoke on the condition that neither he nor his church be identified, said he believed in the Red Letter campaign because he was concerned about white evangelicals’ bond with Mr. Trump.

But the leader said that his church could not participate in the revival. He and three other elders at the church had jobs at Liberty University.

Still, Mr. Golden and the Red Letter Christians found small signs of support. The local organizing committee for the revival included three Liberty students, a Native American minister, and a few black pastors and church leaders. They held different views on homosexuality, but decided to work together in the interest of Christian unity.

“We need to break out of our silos,” said Anne Boynton, an elder at First Christian Church, who was a local co-chairwoman for the revival. “This is an aspirational moment, an opportunity to experience what the kingdom of God looks like.”

Mr. Golden also went to a white stucco church, Rivermont Baptist, to visit the Rev. Byron J. Elliott, who had been deliberating for weeks whether to accept an invitation to preach at the revival.

Mr. Elliott’s father, also a minister, had grown up in the church and braved the sit-ins at a “whites only” lunch counter on Main Street. The family later moved to New York and Mr. Elliott said he returned to Lynchburg two years ago to serve his father’s struggling church. But he felt like an outsider.

“Everyone’s afraid,” he said, pausing. “That’s strong language. Everyone’s very mindful of how they speak and how they deliver the truth. It’s hard to tell the truth in a context like Lynchburg.”

Few black churches in low-income Lynchburg can support full-time pastors, Mr. Elliott told Mr. Golden, so many find jobs on the Liberty campus.

Mr. Elliott, though, had made his decision. He would preach at the Red Letter Revival. “I’ve learned recently that there’s a difference between having something to say and having a voice,” he said.

But there was still the question of how Mr. Falwell himself would react to the event. Ten days before the revival, Mr. Claiborne wrote a letter to Mr. Falwell inviting him to join. Mr. Claiborne was not entirely a stranger — he had preached at Liberty after writing his book, “Jesus for President.” And Mr. Claiborne asked if he could bring some of the participants onto the Liberty campus for a prayer vigil. He asked Mr. Falwell to join them.

“I already pray for you, but I would love to pray with you,” Mr. Claiborne wrote, signing off, “Your brother in Christ.”

Mr. Falwell never responded, though in addition to banning the Red Letter Christians from campus, he forbade the Liberty University student newspaper from covering the revival. When Erin Covey, the student assigned to the story, asked Mr. Falwell to comment on the revival, she received a text from him that said: “Let’s not run any articles about the event. That’s all these folks are here for — publicity. Best to ignore them.”

Mr. Falwell’s brother, the Rev. Jonathan Falwell, agreed to meet with Mr. Golden, though, at Thomas Road Baptist Church on the Liberty campus.

“We really didn’t ask permission to come to Lynchburg,” Mr. Golden said in the meeting. “But we weren’t asked permission for evangelical leaders to say that Donald Trump is the president for evangelicals.”

In an interview later by phone, the Rev. Jonathan Falwell said he disagreed with Mr. Golden’s premise that evangelicalism has been compromised by backing Mr. Trump. “I think the condition of the church today is strong,” he said.

And he said Liberty was justified in barring the Red Letter Christians because Mr. Claiborne had threatened to commit civil disobedience.

“An organization has a duty to the parents to protect their kids,” he said.

When the day of the revival came, the mood and the music inside the cavernous auditorium was upbeat, but began to deflate as the 2,000 seats failed to fill. About 350 people from 28 states attended over two nights. Many said they felt alone in their home churches and had come to find their tribe. Another 3,500 watched a livestream. Roughly two dozen students from Liberty University came.

Mr. Claiborne still wanted to lead a group onto the Liberty campus and hold a prayer vigil — or at least leave a gift for Mr. Falwell, who had just opened a new $3.2 million gun range on campus. Mr. Claiborne had ready a hand plow that he made from a melted-down handgun, a literal following of the Bible’s instruction to “beat swords into plowshares.”

They decided instead that the Liberty police would not dare arrest an 83-year-old. So that afternoon, the Rev. Tony Campolo, co-founder of the Red Letter Christians, entered the front door of Thomas Road Baptist Church, and left a red box with the bewildered receptionist.

Inside the box, tied with a ribbon, was a stack of prayers, written on index cards, from the participants of the revival.

“Dear Liberty, I am praying for your campus,” said one. “The Jesus in the Bible speaks of love and acceptance. I hope you learn to speak of this too.”

 

[Guest]

On 5/26/2018 at 12:00 AM, F250 said:

 

It would mean in both situations, the natural parents should be responsible for raising their children.

[F250 28764]

17 minutes ago, slorch said:

It would mean in both situations, the natural parents should be responsible for raising their children.

No, I don't think that's what it means.

[BrickHorn 18217]

2 hours ago, XYZ said:

Who’s Aleph?

Aleph Null = Axiom of Choice = Aphelion

[Guest]

5 hours ago, BrickHorn said:

I’m not the one that believes in either free will or an omniscient god.  But plenty of people believe in both, and THEY make claims about what those things are.  Claims that implicate logic. 

Once someone claims something exists and has certain properties, those claims are subject to logical analysis.  

Aleph won’t dispute that.  What he does, instead, is redefine God in a way that both cheats the question and foresakes basic precepts of most theistic religions.  Specifically, he relegates god to a hypothesized realm from which He can have no interaction with our universe.  

He also gets wrapped up in red herrings, like the prime number example.  To the extent a mathematical fact “causes” a number to fulfill a mathematical definition, that “cause” is of a completely different sort than the kind of cause required for free will.  Free will only exists if one kind of physical event (a choice) results in a specific outcome that was not determined until the first physical event occurred.  That is a very specific type of causality, and the math analogy is a complete red herring.  

Aleph knows that.  But like I’ve said before, he’s not interested in following logic to the right conclusion.  He’s more interested in concocting clever and complex, but ultimately flawed, arguments that might distract others into agreeing with him.  Not sure what the satisfaction is in that, but maybe that’s why I left the Church when I figured out religion is just silly superstition and illogic.    

To me this is purely a philosophical discussion and I enjoy it for its own sake.  The reason I use symbols like Ω and given explicit definitions limited to what's needed for the argument is to strip out any religious implications.  Could an omniscient being exist and not interfere with our free will and the causality link with the arrow of time in our world?  Does cause and effect require temporal ordering?  These are intrinsically interesting questions.  But I don't view them from the perspective of justifying religion and I'm not trying to tie anything back to some odd form of proselytization.  Also, one can be a Christian regardless of their views on these questions.  I've never heard arguments for the compatibility of free will and omniscience discussed in any detail at church or among any Christians I know.  In fact, the only detailed arguments from Christians that I have heard are against libertarian free will.  They say that all has been decided and they give arguments similar to yours will (but typically intertwined with additional theological reasoning).  So lots of Christians would agree with your conclusions. 

So I'm not arguing these points to validate Christianity.  Like you, my beliefs have wavered over the years and I've believed a wide range of ontological perspectives, some with strong similarities to your own.  I really have reached these conclusions via an honest evaluation; at least honest to a degree as much as I am capable.  

I agree with you that mathematical facts are causes of a different sort than physical events in our universe.  I also think that the acquisition of knowledge by Ω is a different sort of event than physical events in our universe.

[pyrohornIII 4814]

They are pro birth, not pro life.

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

I would posit that the qualities of a supernatural being’s creations are reflections of that being’s essence. OU exists therefore God sucks.
 
 

Better than Brick’s argument

[BrickHorn 18217]

On 5/27/2018 at 8:25 PM, Bozo_Casanova said:

As illogical as arguing against the existence of an omniscient supernatural being on the basis of reason? Lolz.

The word “supernatural” is not some kind of logic-defeating safe word, you fucking dolt.  

[SubliminalHorn 6786]

On 5/27/2018 at 8:50 PM, slorch said:

It would mean in both situations, the natural parents should be responsible for raising their children.

That’s really going to be your take on what he said? Wow

[Guest]

3 hours ago, SubliminalHorn said:

That’s really going to be your take on what he said? Wow

I answered the question, did I not.

"Parents, raise your kids"  is not convenient like y'all think life should be, but it is absolutely consistent.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest]

On 5/27/2018 at 4:38 PM, BrickHorn said:

I’m not the one that believes in either free will or an omniscient god.  But plenty of people believe in both, and THEY make claims about what those things are.  Claims that implicate logic. 

Once someone claims something exists and has certain properties, those claims are subject to logical analysis.  

Aleph won’t dispute that.  What he does, instead, is redefine God in a way that both cheats the question and foresakes basic precepts of most theistic religions.  Specifically, he relegates god to a hypothesized realm from which He can have no interaction with our universe.  

He also gets wrapped up in red herrings, like the prime number example.  To the extent a mathematical fact “causes” a number to fulfill a mathematical definition, that “cause” is of a completely different sort than the kind of cause required for free will.  Free will only exists if one kind of physical event (a choice) results in a specific outcome that was not determined until the first physical event occurred.  That is a very specific type of causality, and the math analogy is a complete red herring.  

Aleph knows that.  But like I’ve said before, he’s not interested in following logic to the right conclusion.  He’s more interested in concocting clever and complex, but ultimately flawed, arguments that might distract others into agreeing with him.  Not sure what the satisfaction is in that, but maybe that’s why I left the Church when I figured out religion is just silly superstition and illogic.    

I came across these interviews of William Lane Craig by Robert Kuhn in which WLC gives brief overviews of some of the points we discussed.  He discusses some of the theological views in the first few minutes that agree with your end conclusion that foreknowledge and free will are not compatible.  He discusses the view that I've expressed starting around 5:10.

William Lane Craig on various views on theological fatalism

The second video covers the views on whether God is timeless or not and also the two views on the nature of time, which he calls tensed and tenseless.  I believe that time is tenseness and that past, present, future are all equally real and that our perception of the passage of time is a product of human consciousness operating within this world.  

William Lane Craig on whether God is temporal or timeless and the two views on the nature of time

The point in the above is not to convince you to change your views on this subject; my point is that these are ancient philosophical discussions and there are both theists and atheists who take various & opposing views on topics within the subject.  For example, WLC believes in a tensed view of time and does not like the tenseless view, so we disagree on that issue.  There are also many theists who disagree with me on the compatibility of foreknowledge and libertarian free will.  So it is incredibly dogmatic to claim that if one doesn't agree with your particular view on this subject, then this can only be because they are employing logical cheats to arrive at the conclusion that aligns with their superstitious illogical views.

Here are a couple of other good overviews on the subject; notice that the views I endorse have both ancient precedents as well as modern day advocates among professional philosophers.  That doesn't make them true, but it does imply that they deserve more than mere dogmatic dismissal.

https://www.iep.utm.edu/foreknow/#H2

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/free-will-foreknowledge/

 

[Orca of Peace 109]

On 5/28/2018 at 9:22 PM, BrickHorn said:

The word “supernatural” is not some kind of logic-defeating safe word, you fucking dolt.  

why not?

[Orca of Peace 109]

loyalty to religion is really loyalty to one's group identity IMO. There's so much personal and group psychology, insecurity and security solution, just too complex.  Give it up, all of it. 

[JBJ 3654]

13 hours ago, Orca of Peace said:

why not?

Because nonsense remains nonsense in any universe.

As Aleph put it earlier, logic is the game of games.  Nature is just one of those games.  Moving God into another game doesn't remove him from logic.

For example, take this common philosophy question: Can an omnipotent being create a black raven that is white?

Edited June 5, 2018 by JBJ

[JBJ 3654]

13 hours ago, Orca of Peace said:

loyalty to religion is really loyalty to one's group identity IMO. There's so much personal and group psychology, insecurity and security solution, just too complex.  Give it up, all of it. 

The ironic thing here is that BrickHorn's arguments are much more common among theologians, and Aleph's are much more common among secular philosophers.  They definitely aren't playing into their group identities.

[Onboard 2.0 9083]

On 5/27/2018 at 3:20 PM, HenryJames said:

Your mom believed in God last night.

She been telling tales about me again ?

[Stringer 1438]

On 5/27/2018 at 8:50 PM, slorch said:

It would mean in both situations, the natural parents should be responsible for raising their children.

I would argue that the natural parents are raising their children.  They're trying to get their families to a place where they have the best change of being safe and successful. 

Wouldn't you do the same for your family if need be?

[cactusflinthead 27598]

On 5/16/2018 at 11:07 PM, cactusflinthead said:

Where in Tacitus? I got one handy. Josephus too while you are at it. Chop chop

@Rex Kramer Viper managed to reply with the gist of it in the other thread. 

We can argue about the point of being peers. It's evident that there are numerous sources outside of the early church that confirm its existence. The question is whether you were or are prepared to cite them. But, you ignored it. 

Oh well. 

Edited June 12, 2018 by cactusflinthead

[Guest]

3 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

@Rex Kramer Viper managed to reply with the gist of it in the other thread. 

We can argue about the point of being peers. It's evident that there are numerous sources outside of the early church that confirm its existence. The question is whether you were or are prepared to cite them. But, you ignored it. 

Oh well. 

Very, very purposely. You don’t even deserve the courtesy of a Let Me Google That For You. 

[cactusflinthead 27598]

Oh cool. We can make claims and not cite them.

Outstanding 

[Guest]

42 minutes ago, cactusflinthead said:

Oh cool. We can make claims and not cite them.

Outstanding 

Yeah. I can also say something that’s fairly common knowledge, like Arky won the ‘64 national title, or that there was once a city near the Amalfi coast that ceased to exist in the year 79, and not cite my sources. 

[atomheartbevo 89630]

On 6/6/2018 at 7:13 AM, Stringer said:

I would argue that the natural parents are raising their children.  They're trying to get their families to a place where they have the best change of being safe and successful. 

Wouldn't you do the same for your family if need be?

If you’re or European descent, It’s why your ancestors came over here.  We’ve lost sight of that. It’s not very Christian for many to basically say “even though I’m here because my ancestors wanted a better life for themselves or their family, fuck you for being a hundred years too late”

Edited June 12, 2018 by atomheartbevo

[Guest]

10 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

If you’re or European descent, It’s why your ancestors came over here.  We’ve lost sight of that. It’s not very Christian for many to basically say “even though I’m here because my ancestors wanted a better life for themselves or their family, fuck you for being a hundred years too late”

What’s the argument?

[Guest]

The argument is that immigration laws should be eradicated because 500 years ago, people came to these lands.

 

The sovereignty of our nation matters as long as we are willing to maintain it.  Some folks get all warm and fuzzy welcoming in any and all folks, whether they follow the laws regulating immigration or not.

If you are not in support of immigration thnderdome, you are a racist threat. You do not love others if you respect the laws of our nation.

abortion isn’t a morality issue, according to the left.  I don’t see immigration as one either.

Edited June 12, 2018 by slorch

[atomheartbevo 89630]

2 hours ago, slorch said:

The sovereignty of our nation matters as long as we are willing to maintain it.  Some folks get all warm and fuzzy welcoming in any and all folks, whether they follow the laws regulating immigration or not.

If you are not in support of immigration thnderdome, you are a racist threat. You do not love others if you respect the laws of our nation.

Not calling anybody a racist, calling them hypocrites for getting so angry that other people are trying to better their lives, and supporting the destruction of those peoples' lives, all the while Trump claims it's all on the Democrats.   If we are going to call ourselves a Christian nation, we need to act like it.   Otherwise, we need to tear down the Statue of Liberty, because she's displaying some commie propaganda.

[atomheartbevo 89630]

Oh, and let me know when Melania's parents release their immigration papers so we can see how and why they are here.

[Guest]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Not calling anybody a racist, calling them hypocrites for getting so angry that other people are trying to better their lives, and supporting the destruction of those peoples' lives, all the while Trump claims it's all on the Democrats.   If we are going to call ourselves a Christian nation, we need to act like it.   Otherwise, we need to tear down the Statue of Liberty, because she's displaying some commie propaganda.

Agreed somewhat, with exceptions for criminals and terrorists. If a group of people is linked to terrorism, don’t let them in, period. It’s not this state’s responsibility to act like Christ; it’s obligated to not repeat many Euro countries’ mistakes. 

[WhatTheBuck 28775]

1 hour ago, atomheartbevo said:

Oh, and let me know when Melania's parents release their immigration papers so we can see how and why they are here.

That'll happen right after Trump releases his tax returns. 

[wildcat09 29347]

Just now, Rex Kramer said:

Agreed somewhat, with exceptions for criminals and terrorists. If a group of people is linked to terrorism, don’t let them in, period. It’s not this state’s responsibility to act like Christ; it’s obligated to not repeat many Euro countries’ mistakes. 

The mistake European countries make wrt immigrants is treating them like second class citizens and denying them the ability to integrate into society.

[Guest]

15 minutes ago, wildcat09 said:

The mistake European countries make wrt immigrants is treating them like second class citizens and denying them the ability to integrate into society.

Oh I imagine the immigrants have a wee bit of culpability. Those that live in Molenbeek come to mind. I’d argue that they themselves have had little interest in integrating with Belgian / French / German / British society. 

[Guest]

2 hours ago, atomheartbevo said:

Oh, and let me know when Melania's parents release their immigration papers so we can see how and why they are here.

FTR, IDNGAF about the Trumps.  i certainly don't endorse him as some sort of great leader.

 

The biggest positive in his presidency has been the constant tizzy and crying fits of those who oppose him. What starts out as political dissent, often turns out to just be, "We hate Trump...because we're not in control."

 

Well, control is an illusion, anyhoo...but the handwringing and hysteria is great comic relief.

 

[atomheartbevo 89630]

1 minute ago, slorch said:

FTR, IDNGAF about the Trumps.  i certainly don't endorse him as some sort of great leader.

Since this is the evangelical thread. If Trump runs as a Democrat and Hillary as a Republican, and both keep their same views, guess who many of the evangelicals will vote for.  Hint: Trump doesn’t just lose the popular vote. 

[atomheartbevo 89630]

1 hour ago, Rex Kramer said:

Agreed somewhat, with exceptions for criminals and terrorists. If a group of people is linked to terrorism, don’t let them in, period. It’s not this state’s responsibility to act like Christ; it’s obligated to not repeat many Euro countries’ mistakes. 

Agreed that criminals and terrorists shouldn’t even be considered. 

As far as the state acting like Christ, plenty want exactly that, and more than a few are in power and trying just that, and they need to be called on it  

But then when it comes to tough things like dealing with poor people, they somehow lose interest in anybody but themselves. 

[Washpark 176]

So Christian of this administration!!

 

More aptly:

 

 

Edited June 14, 2018 by Washpark

[Bozo_Casanova 26437]

Because nonsense remains nonsense in any universe.

As Aleph put it earlier, logic is the game of games.  Nature is just one of those games.  Moving God into another game doesn't remove him from logic.

For example, take this common philosophy question: Can an omnipotent being create a black raven that is white?

I mean, sure. That seems like the essence of what it means to be Omnipotent. Or, put another way, what’s a universe? Serious question.

[TwiceHorn 31440]

On 6/12/2018 at 4:28 PM, atomheartbevo said:

Agreed that criminals and terrorists shouldn’t even be considered. 

As far as the state acting like Christ, plenty want exactly that, and more than a few are in power and trying just that, and they need to be called on it  

But then when it comes to tough things like dealing with poor people, they somehow lose interest in anybody but themselves. 

But you see, this is wrong.  Almost no one in politics is urging anyone to be Christlike and especially not "evangelicals."  Maybe Y_w_h the vengeful God of the Old Testament, but not Christ.  Do you actually know anything about the teachings of Christ?

Edited June 15, 2018 by TwiceHorn