Counter this argument!

[mrbaapt]

This sounds bizarre to me. Synergy has always bin the concept of free will and God. Man being made in Gods image means he has free will in essence.

Can you explain what you are trying to say here? Labeling a paradox "Synergy" does not solve anything.

http://saintandrewgoc.org/home/2014...-according-to-the-holy-orthodox-christia.html

Grace and free will. As we have seen, writes His Eminence Metropolitan Kallistos Ware, "the fact that man is in God's image means among other things that he possesses free will. God wanted a son, not a slave. The Orthodox Church rejects any doctrine of grace which might seem to infringe upon man's freedom. To describe the relation between the grace of God and free will of man, Orthodoxy uses the term cooperation or synergy (synergeia); in Saint Paul's words: "We are fellow-workers (synergoi) with God" (1 Corinthians 3:9). If a man is to achieve full communion (fellowship) with God, he cannot do so without God's help, yet he must also play his own part: man as well as God must make his contribution to the common work, although what God does is of immeasurably greater importance than what man does. The incorporation of man into Christ and his union with god require the cooperation of two unequal, but equally necessary forces: divine grace and human will. (A Monk of the Eastern Church, Orthodox Spiritualit, p. 23). The supreme example of synergy is the Mother of God(see p. 263).

This is glib nonsense.

 

[unimackpass]

Can you explain what you are trying to say here? Labeling a paradox "Synergy" does not solve anything.




This is glib nonsense.

Synergy means that your not a robot in a kids preprogrammed video game neither is God out of control because of your free will.

If I play a grandmaster he can control the board no matter what move I make. He is sovereign over the board even though he isn't controlling my moves. There is no way I can change the final outcome no matter what I come up with. If it's checkers I stand a chance because it's a simple game. This world is way more complicated than chess obviously. It's beyond 5d.

If you throw in time it gets even more complex. If I can't even understand what's going on with a chess master on a board with 64 squares on it, well.

 

[mrbaapt]

Synergy means that your not a robot in a kids preprogrammed video game neither is God out of control because of your free will.

If I play a grandmaster he can control the board no matter what move I make. He is sovereign over the board even though he isn't controlling my moves. There is no way I can change the final outcome no matter what I come up with. If it's checkers I stand a chance because it's a simple game. This world is way more complicated than chess obviously. It's beyond 5d.

If you throw in time it gets even more complex. If I can't even understand what's going on with a chess master on a board with 64 squares on it, well.

Your "explanation" made your point even more nebulous .

I'll put this as simple and concise as I can. Free will cannot exist with a deity that is omnipotent. The 2 concepts are in conflict with each other. There is no synergy they are in discord.

 

[MilesAbove]

For your example to be correct, you would have to allow for the fact that you created the mouse, knowing it would take path B beforehand. The ability of the mouse to make a choice was predetermined by someone who had all foreknowledge that the bits and pieces of biology he was assembling would in fact make that choice, and God chose to assemble in such a way. That is not free will.

You're focused on an unnecessary strawman here. I need not have the equivocation in the analogy because the assertion is predicated upon the equal concept of controlling the "experiment" only. The assertion is about determined outcome parameters controlled by someone who knows potential outcomes, and not the equality of man-to-mouse and god-to-man in the creation argument.

 

[helltoupee]

You're focused on an unnecessary strawman here. I need not have the equivocation in the analogy because the assertion is predicated upon the equal concept of controlling the "experiment" only. The assertion is about determined outcome parameters controlled by someone who knows potential outcomes, and not the equality of man-to-mouse and god-to-man in the creation argument.

It's not a strawman.

This whole free will argument is predicated on an entity that is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent. You have removed those qualities from your argument, thereby invalidating your analogy.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Free will is only possible without god? Where in the world are you getting this from?

My bad, should have clarified. It is impossible with an omniscient god.

 

[CauseImbetta]

Several times indeed. ...and again, men's ability to choose has nothing to do with God's knowledge of that choice. He knows, he does not make the choice for you.

LOL.

You can speak for god (who doesn't exist). I wonder which god you have chosen to speak for. You are so blinded you don't even see the level of delusion.

 

[unimackpass]

Your "explanation" made your point even more nebulous .

I'll put this as simple and concise as I can. Free will cannot exist with a deity that is omnipotent. The 2 concepts are in conflict with each other. There is no synergy they are in discord.

Perhaps it's the concept of omnipotent is where we're having a bottle neck. I appreciate your aproach even though we're in the war room by the way.

The nature of God biblically is that God is love. Love is the very essence of who he is. Omnipotent is a attribute. Essence vs attribute here is critical in understanding theology, (meaning the knowledge of God). God can use his attribute of omnipotence to bring about his will that was born from His essence.

This has bin what has historically set the christian God apart from all other concepts of a sovereign deity. It's the idea that a sovereign god would allow free will. He set all that aside to share a universe based in love. Love can only be based free will.

" God so loved that he gave"

 

[CauseImbetta]

All the arguments you are raising can be turned against your conclusions.

Prove life is meaningful.

Same thing. Good luck!

 

[unimackpass]

My bad, should have clarified. It is impossible with an omniscient god.

Omniscient is a attribute, love is the Essence of God.
God out of love gives free will and uses his omniscience in synergy with us to bring about His will. This has always bin biblical theology until the reformation.

 

[CauseImbetta]

Why is that a contradiction? Why does God need to be created?

That is the logic of creationists themselves! That nothing can't come from nothing, so there must be something that made god. So where did the invisible, cosmic puppet master come from? Total contradiction. First cause shoots itself in the foot.

I think man creates evil and the devil created himself.

I think the Easter bunny is pink and Santa's robe is really purple. You are making shit up. That is not even in ancient scripture that the devil created himself. You are arguing about ferry tales, a delusion not worth entertaining.

Who created man according to you? God? And evil done by men is inadvertently done by god because he created us. Also all the random volcanoes and natural disasters that killed millions of innocents had NOTHING TO DO WITH MAN. It was all god's doing.

The better question would be why does God allow both to exist?

No, the better question is why does god exist in the first place? Once you invent an answer for that, then ask yourself if he allows both good and evil to exist is it because he doesn't give a shit or is he evil? He must be evil. Deism answered that question before monotheism was invented.

God is the most unpleasant character in all fiction. A Manacle, genocidal, homophobic, egomaniac.

• He knew already before creating Adam that he would sin and be punished and burn. So why create him?
• He flooded the entire earth killing countless women and children.
• God created evil. He also uses a man in a red suit (the devil) with a good cop/bad cop routine. A total scapegoat that could be stopped if God wanted because God is omnipotent. The devil never killed anyone actually. The devil didn't kill humanity in a flood or rain down fire to destroy cities or kill thousands of first born children.
• God regularly commanded the destruction of cities and the murder of children, rape of enemies and bathing in pigeon blood as remedy for leprosy. He lets 2 sides of the same religion fight each other to the death both proclaiming he is with that side. His omnipotent messages are so vague we are left to create 3000 different religions all competing with each other.
• God ridiculous edicts in the bible and Koran: can't eat pig, kill a worker on Sunday, cut off hands and stone to death for this or that.
• Hides during your lifetime (we live for about 80 years) then burns us for ETERNITY for not believing while he was hiding during your short life span. Totally set up.
• Explain this twisted nonsense: Elisha and the Two Bears (2 Kings 2:23-25). 2 large bears jumped out of the woods and mauled 42 children to death for making fun of a bald man. LOL.
• Today god kills 5 million children each year of disease and malnutrition before they reach the age of seven. Not to mention the thousands that die of bone cancer before the age of 5. If your prayers are answered (never will be anyway, dont' fool yourself) god must be busy giving children bone cancer instead of listening to your begging and wining for a new car.
• Whoever didn't hear of god mighty message and cosmic plan is doomed (Amazonian tribes, nomads)
• If you accept god into your heart after he tortured himself on a pole in human form you are saved, but you still have to go to church for some reason.
• Mixed messages, allows a pope to speak for him that is also full of contradiction as much as God is. Pope said there is purgatory, then changed his mind and now there is no purgatory. Pope said fetuses that die go to hell, then changed his mind, and a host of other TOTAL BULLSHIT.
• This is just the beginning, need I say more? Do you still believe in this nonsense?

Something to do with man and free will.

Keep inventing shit.

Remember what happened to Lucifer when he was still an angel.

Um....no. Do you believe every fairy tail in ancient scripture written by nomadic savages during the bronze age? Let me guess, evolution is a hoax right? Even the pope had to admit evolution so he doesn't look like a total scam artist (which he is).

There are too many contradictions in Abrahamic to take it seriously. Watch this and see for yourself. Come back to me once you have watched it (start at 2:49 if you don't have the patience). Have a nice say.

 

[mrbaapt]

Perhaps it's the concept of omnipotent is where we're having a bottle neck. I appreciate your aproach even though we're in the war room by the way.

The nature of God biblically is that God is love. Love is the very essence of who he is. Omnipotent is a attribute. Essence vs attribute here is critical in understanding theology, (meaning the knowledge of God). God can use his attribute of omnipotence to bring about his will that was born from His essence.

This has bin what has historically set the christian God apart from all other concepts of a sovereign deity. It's the idea that a sovereign god would allow free will. He set all that aside to share a universe based in love. Love can only be based free will.

" God so loved that he gave"

The god you reference is documented to be the lead purveyor of genocide and petty revenge. (biblically). Unless you have a wildly different idea of what love is your approach is futile.

 

[Cubo de Sangre]

Put no limits on the words
Simply to live, that is my plan
Simply to live, that is my plan
In a city that breaks us

I will say nothing
I will say nothing
I will say nothing
I will say nothing

I can tell that the shadow likes you still
Like the memory, my heart keeps remembering
That simply to live that was my plan
That simply to live that was my plan

And I will say nothing
And I will say nothing
And I will say nothing
And I will say nothing

 

[MilesAbove]

It's not a strawman.

This whole free will argument is predicated on an entity that is supposedly omniscient and omnipotent. You have removed those qualities from your argument, thereby invalidating your analogy.

Incorrect again. Perhaps a logic class will do you plenty. The argument taking place in the analogy is to address the idea that "predetermined" does not necessarily preclude "~Free". Your attempt to demand the argument holds something else is the strawman. I have no dog in the fight of God given I do not accept the premise, and regardless it does not apply to the semantic implication of "predesigned = ~willed volition"

 

[eworden78]

Your "explanation" made your point even more nebulous .

I'll put this as simple and concise as I can. Free will cannot exist with a deity that is omnipotent. The 2 concepts are in conflict with each other. There is no synergy they are in discord.

I had an argument I used to throw around back before I was an atheist that tried to reconcile omnipotence with freewill. I called it Purposeism.
The general idea being:

• Anything that is caused with intention must serve an intended purpose to the causer.
• A purpose requires that there is some thing to be gained beyond what is currently possessed.
• Therefore a deities being cannot encompass all that can possibly be actualized, otherwise it would be impossible for anything to be gained by any purposeful action.
• In that case a strict or classical definition of "omnipotent" is incompatible with a creator being.
• We therefore must assume a creator deity to have a semi-omnipotent status which may be some combination of the following:
  • All initial knowledge and/or power
  • Maximal knowledge and/or power possible to be possessed by a single entity.
  • Unbounded potential knowledge and/or power.
  • Power and/or knowledge equal to all of that which has been actualized.

 

[hillelslovak87]

Omniscient is a attribute, love is the Essence of God.
God out of love gives free will and uses his omniscience in synergy with us to bring about His will. This has always bin biblical theology until the reformation.

Again, more babble. Either God knows what will happen, or he does not. Either the script has been written, or we have indeterminacy in which to actually make choices.

How do you know any of which you speak?

 

[helltoupee]

Incorrect again. Perhaps a logic class will do you plenty. The argument taking place in the analogy is to address the idea that "predetermined" does not necessarily preclude "~Free". Your attempt to demand the argument holds something else is the strawman. I have no dog in the fight of God given I do not accept the premise, and regardless it does not apply to the semantic implication of "predesigned = ~willed volition"

If you're muddled thinking is any indication of where you studied logic, I think I'll decline, thanks.

The argument being proposed is that "God" gave man free will. Omniscience and omnipotence are attributes of God, part of his definition. Words have meaning and implication when applied to logic.

You introduced an argument of man creating a limited framework of mazes for a mouse, and drew the conclusion that the mouse still has free will, despite the fact that the man is aware of potential, limited outcomes. I am not contending that this is incorrect. I am stating that man is not equal to God. Man is not all-knowing and all-powerful. Your equivocation fails, regardless of whether or not we agree upon the conclusion, as God's aforementioned characteristics affect the argument.

You cannot divorce God's intentions (as a *creator* with omnipotence/omniscience) from a man's actions.

 

[Devout Pessimist]

Maybe, but for now you should focus on your high school diploma.

 

[unimackpass]

Again, more babble. Either God knows what will happen, or he does not. Either the script has been written, or we have indeterminacy in which to actually make choices.

How do you know any of which you speak?

It's not that God doesn't know what's going to happen, he does. It's the fact that he can work in synergy, with our free will, and forknow the outcome even while we have free will.
Some people's god is to small. We're trying to put human concepts on God and then proclaiming his limitations.
Where do people come up with this and by what authority?

Man is totally confounded by the universe being mathematically impossible and therefore come up with desperate theories like multiverses. Then we say we know the God of the universe can't do such and such?

How do I know anything Theology wise. Good question.
The same can be asked of you or anyone else. There's people all over the place drinking beer and coming up with what they know to be true. This is bizarre.

I'm speaking of Orthodox theology (theology being the knowledge of God). Not something I dreamed up.

 

[hillelslovak87]

It's not that God doesn't know what's going to happen, he does. It's the fact that he can work in synergy, with our free will, and forknow the outcome even while we have free will.
Some people's god is to small. We're trying to put human concepts on God and then proclaiming his limitations.
Where do people come up with this and by what authority?

Man is totally confounded by the universe being mathematically impossible and therefore come up with desperate theories like multiverses. Then we say we know the God of the universe can't do such and such?

How do I know anything Theology wise. Good question.
The same can be asked of you or anyone else. There's people all over the place drinking beer and coming up with what they know to be true. This is bizarre.

I'm speaking of Orthodox theology (theology being the knowledge of God). Not something I dreamed up.

How do you know any of this? It makes literally zero sense. There is no logic in this rationalization. Speaking of synergy before a paradox does no work to explain or describe anything. You cant have everything pre ordained and then magically say that one can have free will. God has cut off all possibility of autonomy by knowing exactly what will happen in advance. It's like opening Lord of The Rings and pretending as if Tolkien wrote a book where Frodo defeats Sauron, yet gave us an open form book in which we can choose the ending.