Why would an omniscient being regret something? God, being omniscient, must have known from the start that man would disobey him in the Garden of Eden and afterwards. Nothing can surprise an omniscient being. Clearly, knowing that man wouldn't obey him, God decided to go right ahead and create him anyway. God could hardly complain that the outcome of his creation wasn't something he wanted and planned for in advance. But maybe you will argue that the creation of humankind was one of those times when God chose not to be omniscient, for a while, because God can do that kind of thing, so you say. If so, then it seems like the perfect God chose a terrible time to turn off His omniscience. Wouldn't you agree?
But, as pointed out previously, omniscience doesn't really allow this sort of switching on / off behaviour to have any effect on the question of free will. To reiterate: Imagine you have omniscience. At that point you know everything about everything - the past, present, and future. At that point the future is, and will always be, what has been seen. Now, imagine you switch off your omniscience, for whatever reason. Does this now mean that the future you previously saw is no longer going to pan out exactly the way you foresaw it? If so, then you were not truly omniscient at the start, as the future you saw might not happen. If not, and the future will pan out exactly as previously foreseen, then switching it off has zero impact on anything.
Yeah, which is why this kind of discussion is only sustainable for a short time, as it inevitably veers off one way or the other - toward either questions of fact, or toward ignoring them to patronize the theists. It's gone about as far as it can for me and I've already stepped back.
And it won't be the last time on the forums. Someone is always seeing this discussion for the first time. That's the only way I can make sense of the UAP thread, where the same people call the same persons troll or Big liar repeatedly. And, that's after the same people explaining to the same 'trolls' the definition of 'evidence' for the n^th time. Pot boilers all of us.
There will still be things of interest to talk about regarding Jesus of Nazareth, scripture and organized religion. I am an atheist now but I still know plenty of very smart theists. Some on science sites like this. What I have trouble with is reasoning that go along the lines of, "Jesus is god therefore Evolution is false because Jesus read Genesis." Or, " The BB is false because Genesis tells us the earth is 6000 years old." I am friends with two YEC and we do not discuss the Bible because it does not lead anywhere. I respect and like them, I do not respect their views.
I think you're probably onto something, there. In an ideal world, it would only be necessary to expose a lie (or an innocent mistake) once. After that, the reasonable person who told the lie, or who made the mistake, would apologise and stop making the same error in future. The conversation would progress and move to other matters. We do not live in an ideal world. When an issue is never put to rest - e.g. because the person who told the exposed lie refuses to do the decent thing and retract/apologise, only to repeat the very same lie at a later time (only this time knowing that it is a lie) - that's a sure sign that somebody's aim is to troll, rather than having an honest discussion. There is some value in working through examples of trolling, to expose the full extent of the dishonesty to new readers who might otherwise assume that both sides of a debate are populated by well-intentioned, honest interlocutors. There are limits, and also disagreements about just how much trolling should be allowed for the purposes of education. I should also say that some people can be so caught up in a belief system that they become incapable, for the most part, of recognising that they are telling lies for their faith. It can sometimes be hard to tell the difference between that and deliberate trolling. Some other people are actually too stupid, or else just too poorly educated, to understand why their beliefs are unreasonable. In some cases, education is possible; it's often impossible to know in advance whether attempts at education might bear fruit - one can only try it and see.
So, you the mod, help the 'troll' by letting it go on and on and so helping to prevent " honest discussion". How long as it been, is it working yet? That’s why there are mods on forums.
It doesn't make much sense, unless free will is a thing in Christianity, which is taught. So God isn't omniscient when it comes to free will.
However, in betraying God, Adam became Like God, but he was like God by design, so maybe he was just confused by the serpents lies, or under the shroud of temptation. I think God created Adam knowing that it would be befuddled by the maximally. God is omnipotent, but life must suffer or the things that suffer won’t exist at all. God creates nature out necessity, and nature is as such. I think we are in a dream where we must understand wrath and sorrow. The problem of evil doesn’t account for maximally, and a messiah.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Cool thread Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Anyone ever consider that ... umm ... That maybe God is everything? I mean umm ... That notion could be a point worth due consideration. Or maybe others are right ... God is a person ... Wait a being who lives inside and outside of it umm ... Himself and is distinct from and separated from everything else, umm ... Particularly sinners. Ok, ok, what if we're just playing pingpong inside our heads trying to make sense of something we already know. I mean, umm ... What are we discussing? Ok, ok, physics seem relevant to God but is God subject to those laws like we are? Omnipotent might imply that God is not subject to the laws of physics. Wait ... Isn't God a spirit? I'm thinking it best to work with what we know and base our choices on known truth's. All joking aside ... It would seem an easy enough goal given our collective aptitude allows it. Seriously, pigs don't fly unless in a flying vehicle like a flying saucer. The nature of intellectual anti intellectual religious debate.
