With God All things are possible

What are Obrimos mages.

Ars Magica. The Catholics are canonically, unequivocally right. And so are the Orthodox. And the Muslims. And the Jews. And the Zoroastrians. And the Yazidis.

Look, God is mysterious and confusing. It does have rules for playing as divinely-empowered individuals, complete with the strange things that happen to a person as they get closer to God. There's room for Catholic saints, Sufi mystics, and Cathar perfecti. It also has both fluff and crunch for characters from the wizard society ypu usually play as, the Order Of Hermes, who reject the pagan elements of Hermetic tradition and try to practice their magic in accordance with their faith.

It is worth noting that Catholic theology in ArM's setting is noticeably different from how it is today; the game is set eight hundred years ago, and Thomas Aquinas hasn't been born yet, so there's a lot still to happen.

They really wouldn't. The Catholic God is, just by divine simplicity, extremely different from any other conceived deity in human history.

(For those who don't remember Sunday school, divine simplicity is the idea that
A) God has no spatial parts
B) God has no temporal parts
C) God has no parts which are distinct from God himself)
Compare the notion in set theory that any two sets with the exact same elements are exactly the same set, which is why people talk about "the" empty set as opposed to simply "an" empty set. God is what God is, and nothing can be like what God is without being God, because they are irreducible Godhood.

Why not call it Trinitarian Christian God, or at least cathodox God, instead of "Catholic God".
One that can read this may think that Catholics came up with some unique concept of God, while it is basic concept of all Trinitarian Christian world.

LotR

The problem is that our theology is massive. Like uber massive. Summa theologica, which is as author explains a short work for beginners to explain basics of theology is some six hundred fifteen question of up to six or even eight articles, in three (or four) volumes. And even it does not cover it all.
But a few basics of basics that you should know about it begoe you try to use it as layout for your setting:
>God is by defintion most powerful, most good, all knowing etc etc, all those things that you can use to discribe God. There won't be ever overcoming him, there will be never noone like him, there won't be anything like tricking God plotline. Not at all.
>God however won't make four-angled triangle for it's illogical crap. Nor won't he do unjustice or ungoodness. God won't "deny himself" i.e. He won't do anything that would be against his versy self as all-belovent etc.
>God have to be Trinity. No unitarian crap can be here. It makes no sense. It never made. Arius can suck Nicholas cock.
>Practiclly all that God do to humans (and by it I mean some kind of power up - enhanced strengh via Samson, powe to kick demons asses, illumination by wisdom) can be and is called Grace. Grace is participation (a really massive word in theology) in God's very life.

This are usefull for setting basics. If you want to know more just ask questions. I could for exmple say how angels works. Or rpg-esque stories from Bible.

One of the reasons for a lack of media reflecting such concepts of divinity is the logical inconsistencies.

'Will without time', 'omniscient but demands prayer', 'omnibenevolent but not exemplary', that last one being like the killing of children with bears story to prove a point.

As a mode of historical analysis, the papacy was controlled by many powerful aristocratic families, and thus the canonical theology reflected whatever claims to power were least able to be assailed by those who would rebel.

That's not what believers want to hear of course, but then I doubt they really believe pi=3 like it says in the bible, or that slavery and monarchy are a-ok.

At the core value, pagan-like deities are more favored in RPGs because christian-like deities revolve around the powerlessness and inaction of the supplicant: "the meek shall inherit", not "the strong paladin shall inherit". See?

>extremely different

You know this isn't true, right? Christianity is a refinement of "monotheism" (being super-generous about that term), not the first monotheistic religion.

In any case, is the correct answer. Play Ars Magica anyway, it's fucking tight.

>You know this isn't true, right?
Of course it isn't. A lot of Christian dogma was directly translated from Platonism.

Especially after Justinian shut down the philosophy schools, of course.

Well, you have many things got wrong but too long to explain he
>Will without time.
desu I cant understand what are you trying to say here
>omniscient but demands prayer
He doesnt demand anything. Prayer should be dialogue with God, not a mantra that you say as an obligation.
>omnibenevolent but not exemplary
Omnibenevolent but Just, to be exact. And besides that, most of the problems you see when some argue about death is that most fail to realize that humans are immortal and not poof gone after bodily death.

>As a mode of historical analysis, the papacy was controlled by many powerful aristocratic families, and thus the canonical theology reflected whatever claims to power were least able to be assailed by those who would rebel.
My first correction would be that Christian theology is not only Catholic one. You have Orthodox theology that never depended on one singular bishop or center of authority but on Church as it is (some may argue about Ecumenical councils, but when you analyze documents, you get a fair reasons why certain groups were excommunicated).

>doubt they really believe pi=3 like it says in the bible
It doesnt if you are not indiana state protestant
purplemath.com/modules/bibleval.htm

>or that slavery
A) Adam was created free, which means that it is unwritten law to condemn slavery (just as creation of Adam and eve unwritten condemns polygamy)
B) Slavery in biblical terms is just an employment and economical system (employee) , unlike slavery in modern understandings (chattel slavery).
Also saying, that slaves shouldnt outright murder their masters, doesnt mean that someone approves slavery. its just a pragmatic advice.

>monarchy are a-ok.
First of all, I cant understand why would one condemn one political system so singlehandedly (though I myself are strictly anti monarchist because of the Christian understanding), but Bible shows that God was against monarchy and ideal system was Judges....

Besides this, you clearly see that God disaproves monarchy in 1 Samuel 8:7, though respects choice of people
>And the LORD said unto Samuel, Hearken unto the voice of the people in all that they say unto thee: for they have not rejected thee, but they have rejected me, that I should not reign over them.

Monarchy isn't okay. Thomas Paine explicitly explains how Divine Right Of Kings is a sin according to the Bible in Common Sense. Go read it.

>Christian theology is not only Catholic one. You have Orthodox theology
Are you actually a professional apologist?

The Book of Tobit, deuterocanonical in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy gives you the right to marry your sister, as directly told by the Archangel Raphael.

Biblical inaccuracy is as well highly studied and known. There are contradictions (ages of kings, amount of soldiers) and mathematical errors (size of circle). Biblical inerrantists are widely considered foolish by modern standards.

>Prayer should be dialogue
An 'omniscient' being would have no use for "dialogue".

>Omnibenevolent but Just, to be exact.
If you personally acted like the Christian deity, torturing Job for a bet, you'd be considered a deranged psychopath.

You know what causes a lot of suffering in the world? Christians unable to admit their errors.

>'Will without time
Not inconsistent.
>'omniscient but demands prayer'
Not even related.
>'omnibenevolent but not exemplary'
Trivially consistent.

>Thomas Paine explicitly explains
If you like him so much, you should read the Age of Reason.

He hated Christianity with a fiery passion and mocked it constantly. That's why he sought to manipulate scripture to restore pagan republicanism.

The key deity's properties do not resemble those of other deities except possibly Brahman as the Godhead. I will accept that it's entirely false to say it's different from EVERY deity, as Brahman is in fact very similar apart from details like divine simplicity. This was a blatant oversight on my part, but I'd disagree with the notion that other forms of monotheism are similar to Orthodox Catholicism. Judaism can be similar, but early Judaism was not, though I concede I have little knowledge of Judaism's evolution over the ages. That said, I consider the Abrahamic God to be the same, whether speaking of the Christian, Muslim or Judaic, so whether it was similar to those was not at all what I wanted to dispute.

>The Book of Tobit, deuterocanonical in both Catholicism and Orthodoxy gives you the right to marry your sister, as directly told by the Archangel Raphael.
it doesnt. Its a marriage formula and you can clearly see this in songs of Solomon ("my sister, my bride", while they were not related") Its about spiritual kinship. Explaining this as allowing incest is like saying that husband and wife literally merege into one human while "becoming one flesh".
Also Bible is against incest, as said in Torah.

>Biblical inaccuracy is as well highly studied and known. There are contradictions (ages of kings, amount of soldiers) and mathematical errors (size of circle). Biblical inerrantists are widely considered foolish by modern standards.
[citation needed]
First I think you mean about Gideon, that cannot be proved. As we dont fully know capacities of that period. We also dont know if it was about soldier only army, or entire tribe (even soldier only armies had more assistants and carriers for logistical purposes than combatants) On second part, I showed you the link.
And be

>An 'omniscient' being would have no use for "dialogue".
this is your attitude, judging by your human brain. God is not a servant or master, but a Father, with whom should we talk. Though of course, he knows what we want (as said by Christ). This also means, that God is talking to us like independent beings (that are not childlike and must be forcefed). Look, prayer is entire subject that we cannot discuss on single thread. for more, you can read works of church fathers, from modern theologians, Kallistos Ware, namely.

>If you personally acted like the Christian deity, torturing Job for a bet, you'd be considered a deranged psychopath.
If you take story as a literal and not as prophecy and narration. Also you missed entire point of that book about endurance of faithful.

>You know what causes a lot of suffering in the world?
Our fall caused by our free will.

The circle size thing just strikes me as pedantic desu. I'm not a Christian but come on, sig figs are a thing, as are approximates and rounding for purposes

>Its about spiritual kinship. Explaining this as allowing incest is like saying that husband and wife literally merege into one human while "becoming one flesh".
>Also Bible is against incest, as said in Torah.
You're factually lying. We have genetic evidence of heavy inbreeding in Jewish and Muslim communities where Abrahamic tradition is observed.

Anyone can read the Book of Tobit and see your lies.

>[citation needed]
Seek and you shall find, Christian.

>with whom should we talk
And yet the being cannot be omniscient if it does not know all you would say.

>If you take story as a literal
It is given as literal. You are lying if you say it is not.

>Our fall caused by our free will.
Caused simply by ignorance and superstition. The fact that you have turned away from the natural world repeatedly is the downfall of all Christian dogma.

And of course why it's not as popular in RPGs as pagan heroism.

Actually, Brahman is different for he is totally immanent to universe according to prime teachings (though Hinduism is completely disorganized and have various schools)
>That said, I consider the Abrahamic God to be the same, whether speaking of the Christian, Muslim or Judaic, so whether it was similar to those was not at all what I wanted to dispute.
They are not.
Trinity is unique concept itself, but At least Judaism and Christian regards God as Father, while Muslims regard God as Just creator and maximum relation one can have with him is Slave-Master relations.
So difference is not only in Unitarianism-Trinitarianism, but also on attitudes on God-Human relations, by which Judaism and Christianity have something in common.

>The circle size thing just strikes me as pedantic desu. I'm not a Christian but come on, sig figs are a thing, as are approximates and rounding for purposes
It isn't when the book claims to be the inviolable word of a divine being.

It is only held to the standards it purports to have.

If it had said "this book can be wrong and was written only by humans, we hope it is helpful, but always value evidence and reason above scripture", things would be entirely different, and there would have been a lot less suffering over its pages.

Which is why I said "apart from details", which is nebulous I'll admit, but small things like how one interacts with the entity, the actions of the entity etc. are not what I'm talking about. Rather, the all-encompassing infinite nature. This is what I meant was similar with Brahman. Mostly just the nature of infinity and absolutes and uniqueness.

Sounds like you want Ars Magica to me

Wow, I sense butthurt. already.

>You're factually lying. We have genetic evidence of heavy inbreeding in Jewish and Muslim communities where Abrahamic tradition is observed.
I was talking about Bible, not on Halakha and Talmud, when regarding Judaism, even though Jews are not inbred, as you want to describe.
And Muslims are completely irrelevant to this subject as they have their set of laws set by Mohamed.

>And yet the being cannot be omniscient if it does not know all you would say.
Its about formality, as I said. but "Be not ye therefore like unto them: for your Father knoweth what things ye have need of, before ye ask him." (Matthew 6:8)

I wont even answer other "responses" as they are such lame and pathetic. Its Just really interesting how you began mental defection so quickly. It usually happens after much time during conversation by my experience.

True. But you cant regard Brahman as whole concept as itself, for different schools have different interpretations. Though its hard to refer to Brahman as an absolute (that should also include immortality in my opinion) for he is by definition a mortal, who dies and is reborn after 100 Brahma years.

>Wow, I sense butthurt. already.
I am angry that you would lie to my face about the very words I have read to preserve your heathenry.

>And Muslims are completely irrelevant to this subject as they have their set of laws set by Mohamed.
No they are not, they run the same line of tradition from Abraham, as Mohamed was himself a Nestorian Christian.

>Its about formality, as I said.
An 'omniscient' being would have no use for "formality". Let us be honest here: prayer is about training humans, not about divine beings.

>I wont even answer other "responses" as they are such lame and pathetic.
Of course you won't, because you have no capability to disprove them.

>It isn't when the book claims to be the inviolable word of a divine being.
A) It isn't. The Bible explicitly says it's written with divine inspiration as per Timothy 3:16, so no. It's not claimed to be the inviolable word of a divine being, simply the words of those who have had an intentional glimpse at the divine being in some unspecified way, shape or form. I expect this extremely basic information to be known by critics.
B) Even if it were; consider that to be inerrant, any length would require a precision of such length in our known number systems that advanced mathematical notational machinery would need be detailed and explained, to explain things down to below even the Planck lengths (which are not a limit on the size of anything, that's conjecture), and would by our current ontological knowledge still be incorrect due to the spatially indeterminate behaviour of elementary particles.

That is to say, perfection would likely not be possible within the framework of human understanding, so at some point approximations would need exist, or not be communicable. Complaining that the approximation is too rough is just nitpicking at that point.

Interesting! This is very different from what I've heard. I'd love to hear more.

I only brought up Brahman because I considered Brahman at least one example of a somewhat similar deity in a relevant and significant way, but I'm actually fairly ignorant about Hindu beliefs, I'm forced to admit.

Could you tell me some more about the nature of Brahman in mainstream Hinduism (I guess the equivalent of armchair Christianity, which breeds very ignorant stuff like supply side Jesus), and perhaps in different formal Hinduist schools of thought?

>An 'omniscient' being would have no use for "formality"
Who says there's a need? Who says there's a desire? Who says it's not, as you say, just a way for the human to be able to preserve free will but still have training in subservience to deities?
Why can't it just be arbitrary?
People always hate the idea of arbitrary actions, but logically speaking everything is arbitrary, albeit at different levels of intuition.

Not the guy you're talking with btw, I'm a different user who thinks you're being lame and disingenuous, unless you genuinely don't understand why you're not making salient points.

>that advanced mathematical notational machinery would need be detailed and explained
And yet pagans had demonstrably superior mathematics and resulting architecture.

>It's not claimed to be the inviolable word of a divine being
More outright lies. Is that the game of our apologies? To speak abject falsity in order that you annoy others such that you can pretend to be the victim?

The Council of Trent specifically forbids lay interpretation of the bible for its purported divinity. The pope is claimed to be scripturally infallible in his interpretation, and the voice of the divine on Earth.

Enough with the falsehoods. You act as Martin Luther decreed: 'Lie to preserve the dogma.'

Fortunately, in this modern age, anyone can read the texts for themselves. That is one of greatest salves for this foolishness.

>who thinks you're being lame and disingenuous, unless you genuinely don't understand why you're not making salient points
That is always the opinion of Christian apologists though. They have been indoctrinated to be unable to see the logical fallacies inherent in their scripture. It's a very harmful behavior, as we see in Scientology today. The very same behavior. Why is Scientology wrong? Can you disprove L. Ron Hubbard? Not if you switch off logic.

>Who says there's a desire?
The religious. It is a simple fact that omniscience belies both free will and the efficacy of prayer. Those bereft of logic will of course not see that, but that is their problem.

well congratulations, you nailed your coffin :) bye

Well, Mainstream Hinduism tends to be pantheistic that means that Brahman is immanent to universe and everything in it is its manifestation. Everything from rocks to deities are manifestation of said Brahman. (thats why you see Hindus worshiping literally everything). One of the key tendencies you see in Hinduism is cyclic path (and its most popular form of reincarnation). Main mechanics from cyclic form is Karma and according to Hinduism, everyone is subject to it. And as I said Cyclic path is also what Brahman depends on.
In short 1 Brahma day is divided into 4 periods (yugas), that last for several thousand years. After the last Period (Kali yuga) begins new cycle. 2000 such cycles form 1 Brahma day and then by standard solar calendar system, you get 100 Brahma years, after which He dies and Is reborn again after another 100 years.
So two key principles of Hinduism is Reincarnation and Concept of Karma that can be summoned up as a "Cyclicity". And it is also common for Buddhism and Jainism.

This is what I know from my knowledge. Of course, different Schools have different interpretations, but these teachings can be tracked in Vedas themselves.

You're aware that cubits aren't standardized. It's an approximation by definition of the units used to come to your conclusion. Quit being autistic and people will like you more.

>In short 1 Brahma day is divided
sorry, I should've said that one Mahayuga is divided into 4 periods

>And yet pagans had demonstrably superior mathematics and resulting architecture.
?
What the fuck is that supposed to mean? That only makes it even more important not to give the non-pagans a language they could understand.

Are you retarded, willfully ignorant, or a troll?

The Bible itself never purports to be inviolable, Catholics being Catholics and making retarded claims is par for the course, but it's not internally inconsistent in that regard.

I'm not a Christian apologist. I'm not even Christian. I'm just explaining why you, specifically, are retarded.

>>Those bereft of logic will of course not see that, but that is their problem.
>brainlets who don't understand formal first-order logic thinking they're hot shit for being able to form syllogisms
lmao
Free will is not necessarily incompatible with omniscience, it's incompatible with CAUSALITY, you dipshit. Which is why it doesn't make sense, because causality is pretty central to our thinking, but you're wrong regardless.

What's the problem with Unitarians?

1 Brahma day: 4 yugas of several thousand years
After 4th yuga, new cycle
2000 cycles: 1 Brahma day
1 Brahma day: 8000 yugas?
I'm assuming you mean Brahma year for the 2000 cycles, each of which is a Brahma day?
So 1 Brahma Year is 8000 yugas and 100 Brahma years of life are followed by 100 years of death, ad infinitum?

>Quit being autistic and people will like you more.
I don't care about being liked, I care about the truth.

Every time an article of Christian dogma is disproved factually, it is claimed to be "allegorical" or "approximate" or "spiritual".

That is ridiculous.

>well congratulations, you nailed your coffin :) bye
Of course, the pithy and threatening withdrawal. As expected from a Christian faced with his own arrogance.

>Catholics being Catholics and making retarded claims
Can you explain who are you to judge that thousand years of dogma and theology as "retarded"?

This is an example of 'selective Christianity'. If there's something wrong with the source of your beliefs, "those other guys did it". Never mind your ways are based on their errors.

>Free will is not necessarily incompatible with omniscience
Of course it is. If the divine being knows all you will do, you have no real decisions to make and never did. Special bonus points of the divine being created you, and thus literally programmed you to do it.

There is no logic in those dogmatic beliefs, that's the problem, and it's been a problem all throughout the superstitious middle ages. It's just now abating.

I'm not
a fucking
Christian
holy shit how hard is this to understand? No wonder you don't understand what Christians actually believe

>Of course it is. If the divine being knows all you will do, you have no real decisions to make and never did.
Define real decision. Justify creation necessitating premeditation and consequently programming (I just helped you see some of the implicit assumptions you made because you're a retard who clearly didn't see them himself).

I bet you think Shlomo Yudkowsky is anything but an idiot who doesn't understand mathematics or game theory. You seem like the lesswrong kinda moron who doesn't understand logic.

I made a mistake in that part (sorry)
I should've said Mahayuga that is divided in 4 parts. 1000 Mahayuga forms 1 Kalpa (Half of Brahma day) and 2 Kalpas form 1 Brahma day and night

Full list here :en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hindu_units_of_time

But yes, This cycle continues without end.

>No wonder you don't understand what Christians actually believe
No, I post a simple explanation as to the reason Christian dogma isn't as popular in RPGs and fantasy in general, and the dogpile of factually incorrect apologists arrives.

Try telling people that Easter is based on pagan Ostara, they'll go crazy too.

If you're not a Christian, you may as well just convert with how you speak.

>Justify creation necessitating premeditation and consequently programming
Are you joking? Pretentious namedropping doesn't cover your glaring logical errors:

If the divine being created you and knows every decision you will make, it was that being which made those decisions, not you. No definition of "free will" can overcome that. That's where Calvinism and Predestination come from.

Which, presumably you are ignorant of.

Causality on the other hand does not remove free will, since the future does not yet exist.

>If the divine being created you and knows every decision you will make, it was that being which made those decisions, not you.
No.
This is logically invalid. Try harder. D- see me after class.

>No.
>This is logically invalid. Try harder.
And then the ridiculous idiocy of making that statement without any factual disproval.

Are you joking?

"No, you are wrong. Why? Because I said so. I am your teacher. You fail."

And people wonder why religious claims get mocked. This is wasteful.

>Try telling people that Easter is based on pagan Ostara, they'll go crazy too.
Except that nobody gave a fuck about some germanic festival outside of western Europe. And Easter is defined by Pesach.
If something is named something in some language, doesnt make two concepts same thing.
By that logic, Akbar is mouse in hebrew, so when Muslim shouts allahu akbar, he says that Allah is a mouse

>Try telling people that Easter is based on pagan Ostara, they'll go crazy too.

How's high school treating you?

>doesnt make two concepts same thing
I wonder why they'd choose to use a pagan deity's name though. With her own festival at the same time... Hmm.

It's almost as if the Christmas tree was also from Germanic tradition.

And the mother and child from Isis and Horus, the resurrection from Osiris, communion from the eating of Osiris' body as sacred cakes...

In fact, Genesis itself seems to be directly from Enuma Elish! Imagine that. All these 'sacred exclusive traditions' were inspired by pagan practices, rather than the Christian deity.

Come on now, enough. The excessive superbia with which Christians will defend their dogma as unique and special and wonderful is astounding.

Premise A: divine being is the reason you exist
Premise B: divine being knows what actions you will take
Conclusion: divine being decided your actions for you
How does this follow?
Protip: It doesn't. Your mistake is assuming materialistic determinism, assuming intent, assuming a whole host of other things you are not justifying but inserting into the religion to justify your stupid fucking claims.

Also you just asked me to prove a negative when arguing about RELIGION. Good job, dumbo. IQ points been dwindling lately haven't they?

Explain how Omniscience restricts free will and prayers usefulness? Asserting it and saying "but muh logic" does not make it so. The first is saying you can't do something you will not have done and saying that because of that you're not free. It's true as a result of your beloved logical schema not breaking down and not because your actions can be said to already have occurred from the perspective of a being that can sit outside of time. The latter is just missing the point of prayers. Like that other user said, the church fathers wrote plenty on the subject.

You act like someone indoctrinated by fedora tier authors who likewise can't see the logical fallacies in your own scripture.

>I wonder why they'd choose to use a pagan deity's name though.
I dont care, ask English about that. We just call it "resurrection".

>It's almost as if the Christmas tree was also from Germanic tradition.
And nobody cares. you can read about tree of Lebanon throughout the Bible.
Also, sacred tree for fagans was an oak, not pine (same kind that belongs to cedar, tree of lebanon).

>rest of the post
so your primary education source is a zeitgeist movie, eh? Its quite understandable, if we count your low brain capacity, that you regarded these """facts""" as truth.

That they logically make no sense. God to be unitarian would have to be not loving. But loving God is greater than loving God and therefore not loving God is not God.
Other reason is that Trinity comes from porccesion of Will and Thought of Father. God to be unitarian would have to be dead.
Not to mention that unitarian God is reaction to trinitarian one. Islam and post-tample Judaism hold unto Unitarian God only because Christians believe in Trinity. And there ain't any other monotheism around here (well maybe with exeption of that one Egyptian guy but I would not go to call his god the God in stric sense. It was more like only oversised idol)

>Premise A: divine being is the reason you exist
>Premise B: divine being knows what actions you will take
>Conclusion: divine being decided your actions for you
>How does this follow?

Premise: Human is the reason robot exists.
Premise: Human knows what actions robot will take.
Premise: Human gives law as commandments to robot.

What conclusions can be drawn from any and all of those premisi?

However, if you considered things logically, you would see the complete foreknowledge of all actions precludes free will. There are no decisions which have not yet made.

In the second order, if the being with complete foreknowledge of your actions by its divine will created you, then it CAUSED those actions.

Then let us say that that the deity had the desire to TEST YOU, and judge whether you would enter paradise of damnation. Interesting you omit this article of dogma.

How can the deity test you for your free will decisions if it already knows what you will do?

You see the fact is that 'willful creation' is a determinant of future actions, which if such a future is known beforehand, precludes any subsequent decisions to change that future. Ergo, no free will.

But maybe you should learn epistemology, rather than regurgitating apologies.

>Explain how Omniscience restricts free will and prayers usefulness?
See above.

>indoctrinated by fedora tier
An image meme and claiming that science is indoctrination simply do not stop the truth. Reason always prevails, eventually. No matter how many historical cults pass.

>And nobody cares.
Reasonable people care. Perhaps you do not.

>Reasonable people care. Perhaps you do not.
reasonable people analyze entire cultures and religions to the end of its teachings instead of believing some statements just because it is said. And you seem to be far from reasonable, because for you, Christianity is only part of an Anglosphere (though I now dont even know if you are really """arguing""" (if so, I feel sorry for your mental retardation) or just trolling and shitposting)

so you regard humans as robots? then Calvinism is for you.

By your logic, when you watch the movie and know its scenario, then you decide everything what goes in the movie. not to mention that "God know future" is an oxymoron itself, since God is outside of time.

>reasonable people analyze entire cultures and religions to the end of its teachings
And oddly enough I have. I've just drawn different conclusions than you.

The simple observable facts are that humans invented religion to try to explain the natural world, and then it was adopted and used as a social power structure to maintain ruling families.

There is just no ability for you to actually use any theological tenet to summon a divine being, nor to perform a practical healing of the sick or feeding of the hungry.

All of that is the real of science, which was the truth all along.

It may be that religious persons hate that and wish science destroyed, but as it is the truth, it does enduringly prevail.

>is outside of time
Which again, precludes free will.

The only conclusion which preserves free will is that there is neither omniscience nor omnipotence, and that no creature exists which is powerful and willful enough to control or define you.

The free will we observe in nature can only occur if deities do not exist.

>And oddly enough I have.
Perhaps this is the reason that you """think""" that Easter is a germanic festival. Truly, Sherlock Holmes and Leutenant Columbo would envy you.

>The simple observable facts are that humans invented religion to try to explain the natural world, and then it was adopted and used as a social power structure to maintain ruling families.
Ah yes, traditional Marxist "hurr, religion is opium of people" statement. I wonder, why fagtheists have it as a mantra.

>It may be that religious persons hate that and wish science destroyed, but as it is the truth, it does enduringly prevail.
kek, ok I know that you are just a troll

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Criticism_of_atheism#Atheism_and_science

>>Premise: Human gives law as commandments to robot.
Wew, lad. Nice insertion of an extra premise. Are you telling me that to Christians, the divine law is impossible to break? Because good job sonny, you're a fucking retard.

>In the second order, if the being with complete foreknowledge of your actions by its divine will created you, then it CAUSED those actions.
This is still first-order, champ.

You know nothing about epistemology you moron. You just think you do. You're the classic case of a pseudointellectual who's average IQ, maybe a standard deviation above at best, and thinks he somehow grasps what others far more intelligent than him don't.

>>However, if you considered things logically, you would see the complete foreknowledge of all actions precludes free will. There are no decisions which have not yet
>lol time is linear and flows, come on man my intuition of time is perfectly rigorous lmao

>>How can the deity test you for your free will decisions if it already knows what you will do?
>what are formalities
>>You see the fact is that 'willful creation' is a determinant of future actions, which if such a future is known beforehand, precludes any subsequent decisions to change that future. Ergo, no free will.
You just fucking made the exact same goddamn logical fallacy that I told you not to make. You are so stupid that even when TOLD which pitfalls of invalid logic not to fall into, you still careen right on ahead.

I'm not continuing this discussion. You are an idiot who won't listen to reason, and a delicious, juicy and crystal-clear example of the Dunning-Kruger phenomenon.

>Are you joking? Pretentious namedropping doesn't cover your glaring logical errors:
I only now realize that you actually genuinely think the words "justify"; "creation"; "premeditated"; "necessitating"; and "programming" are pretentious namedropping rather than simple fucking terms meaning simple fucking things.

Or maybe you took offense to "and"?
Either way, illiterates need not apply.

The fact that someone can do something, doesnt mean, that someone WILL do something.
For example, God can annihilate entire creation, but He wont. Similarly, God can take our free will and make us robots, but He wont, because we were made in his image and likeness and this promise is eternal. We also know that as God is Love, he wants us to Love too (as we were made in his image and likeness), however, love is possible if you have free will.

It's like
>human: level
>Superman: get on my level
>darkseid: I operate on a higher level
>the presence: I invented the concept of levels and am thus beyond them

literally Mage the Ascension with the Prime Sphere.

>It's an apologetic episode

>>It may be that religious persons hate that and wish science destroyed, but as it is the truth, it does enduringly prevail.
As someone who is actually studying science and not engineering or other bullshit that does not deal with epistemology, let me tell you that any scientist who thinks they're studying "truth" is one that flunked out of the mandatory philosophy of science class.
Read some Kuhn, Kant, the history of logical positivism, Popper et al

>Ah yes, traditional Marxist "hurr, religion is opium of people" statement.
I seem to recall it's a tradition of Democritian materialism for many thousands of years.

The fact is that Marxism itself is another cult of delusion. Science has demonstrated the benefit of a free market.

>You're the classic case of a pseudointellectual
That seems more like a projection.

You know you are defending ancient Israeli mythology as factually true, right?

>Nice insertion of an extra premise.
And then further down, which I suppose you didn't read, I explained each.

Do you deny that premise is in Christian dogma?

Again, the fact remains that if your willful creator knows all of our future actions, there can be no freedom for you to choose any different future, nor is there any point or relevance to a "test of virtue". Can you disprove Calvinism? I don't believe so.

>I'm not continuing this discussion. You are an idiot
Of course, that is what Christians habitually devolve to when they simply cannot defend the illogic of their beliefs.

"You don't believe mythology? You must be uneducated and stupid."

>can take our free will and make us robots
Let me put it this way:

Prove you are not a robot programmed by your deity to take the actions you do, whose programming includes believing you have free will, but not actually having it.

Any existence of omniscience, "knows all you will do", precludes any existence of decisions. Period. The end. Basic epistemology. The secular kind, of course.

>Either way, illiterates need not apply.
See, pretentious edginess.

>>The free will we observe in nature can only occur if deities do not exist.
>we observe free will in nature
lel
The only materialistic conception of qualia that isn't ridiculously lackluster is eliminativism.
Are you like, 17 or something? 17-year olds often make claims like this outside their area of expertise

That's boring though, you wouldn't want to play an RPG with that kind of god in the setting.

>Are you like, 17 or something? 17-year olds often make claims like this outside their area of expertise
You can tell when people appeal to 'age', they have no argument.

They also use terms like "qualia" as if they were clinicians, instead of 'attributes'.

But honestly, if you want to defend Christianity, can you prove you are not a robot programmed by Yahweh?

It is possible to have different levels of god

You see you can have more than one god and still have YHWH

It's sort of like the mythos, everythig is created by one dude, but other "gods" exist.

Basically in d&d terms YHWH would be a overdiety. All powerful, needs no worship and acts indirectly.

>he thinks qualia are "attributes"
>he thinks I'm defending Christianity (which I think is silly) rather than debunking his idiotic assertions
>he's butthurt about being called a kid for saying childish things
wew, laddie

>free will

K god doesn't want me to do certain things, what if I went and did something he didn't want me to do?

Are these threads homework for Christians to practice and hone their memes?

>Prove you are not a robot programmed by your deity to take the actions you do, whose programming includes believing you have free will, but not actually having it.
>Any existence of omniscience, "knows all you will do", precludes any existence of decisions. Period. The end. Basic epistemology. The secular kind, of course.

Ok now this is absolutely retarded.
First of all, you demand evidential proof of a CONCEPT (that is immaterial) and yet, you reject authority of the books according to which we conclude that we have free will. So you view God as Muslims view Allah, who is "Greatest of Deceivers" and when you will be answered, you will simply reject it, because you can't get EVIDENTIAL claim of an IMMATERIAL concept.
Though if you want evidential claim, you can see God saying (more like begging) for us to repent by following words:
>Say unto them, As I live, saith the Lord God, I have no pleasure in the death of the wicked; but that the wicked turn from his way and live: turn ye, turn ye from your evil ways; for why will ye die, O house of Israel? (Ezekiel 33:11).
Although we know, that there are damned and there are saved, therefore, eve though God wills everyone to be with him, it depends on us, if we will be with him. And this is repeated throughout the Bible.

As for the second statement, to know, what decision one will make, doesn't mean that he didn't decide what to make. Eventhough, as I said, Its an oxymoron, as God is outside of time.
Having a power=/=using the power

You spout a lot of memes for someone who is ostensibly not underage.

>he didn't decide what to make
Of course, by "he" I mean operator and not a knower

>wew, laddie
That again is not an argument.

You're humiliating yourself if you believe you can "debunk" with an appeal to age and ideology.

>what if I went and did something he didn't want me to do?
If the deity is omniscient and omnipotent, you literally cannot do anything it did not want you to do.

>Ok now this is absolutely retarded.
No it isn't. I believe you are a robot programmed by Yahweh to perform as it wishes and to believe you have free will without genuinely having it.

Do you deny that is possible?

How can you KNOW it isn't true? Then we can get into this 'epistemology' you pretend to understand.

I Imagen Humans taking role of other gods and acting as demiurges, while God will be our creator. (and oddly, we are called gods in psalm 82)

Hey lets break this conversation into even more of a clusterfuck

>implying a lack of choice = a lack of free will
>>implicitating that a man willingly in a cell isn't free

your concept of free will is stupid

>your concept of free will is stupid
It's the simple fact that in order for free will to exist, the ability to make decisions about the future, the future cannot have happened yet.

And secondly, if you are slave controlled by a greater power, you are not the one making decisions. Thus for free will to exist, there can be no deities which can control you.

This is empirically demonstrated by the divergence of cultures with time: something which could never happen if the deities they claimed to know of existed.

>No it isn't. I believe you are a robot programmed by Yahweh to perform as it wishes and to believe you have free will without genuinely having it.
>Do you deny that is possible?

As I said, You want proofs yet when presented (as books, by which we analyze it) you reject them. So its becoming more and more like arguing with a pigeon.)

>How can you KNOW it isn't true? Then we can get into this 'epistemology' you pretend to understand.

Sorry, but I cant write entire Church tradition of several thousand years in one post or even a thread. I wrote you what is written in the bible and we can conclude that it is true, by analyzing what God is. God is a perfect being and perfectly good and lying is not good and thus sign of imperfectness, therefore, we can conclude, that God wont lie, as it is said in the bible ("I am the truth"). However, you will, of course, reject this, because your puny brain cannot comprehend it, as you cannot touch it and while you can touch and see what describes this truth in human conceptions, you outright reject this.

And by the way, I'm completely different user. But your puny brain cannot see that difference either.

>posting Aquinas
>doesn't know it's been disproven

Aquinas cannot solve the recursive problem:
Namely that one can state there most have been something which created the creator.
And if you deny that, one can state there was no creator, and the universe always was.

Thought you should know.

It also doesn't cross the gap of "Prime Mover == YHVH, plz be catholic"

>Namely that one can state there most have been something which created the creator.
Then at the end that creator would be God and subordinate creator would be demiurge, so we are not about atheism, but Gnosticism.
In fact, since we are on Veeky Forums you can see that humans are already those subordinate creators, as we create fantasy settings. So theres nothing new under the sun.
But at the End, creator exists and by faith and mind, we should make correct decision, regarding our creator.

>It also doesn't cross the gap of "Prime Mover == YHVH, plz be catholic"
why do you assume that everyone is catholic to begin with? Why do you hate catholics so much?

What if god knows all futures?

He knows how my life will change do to each choice, and so tries to change the chances of me picking the right choices.

Let's say he knows that my chances of a good choice are 31% and my chances of a bad choice are 69%. He wants me to pick the good choice and prompts a person to act and raise my chances of a good choice. If they pick to use the right choice, then my chances go up.

Think of it like a domino row, he changes circumstances to increase chances of us going down a particular future. People can and often will reject his prompts affecting the people farther down the row. It's a butterfly affect.

He will never do something to remove my freedom to do the right thing, but will push me to do the right thing. Like a GPS if I use the wrong road, then he will change strategies to get me back on the right road.

He knows not one future but all futures and us perfectly, and makes moves to help all of us. His actions and ours constantly change the game.

>God wont lie, as it is said in the bible ("I am the truth"). However, you will, of course, reject this, because your puny brain cannot comprehend it

So catholic god isn't capable of creating a universe where his official doctrine sounds reasonable to everyone regardless of intelligence. Instead catholic god uses internet trolls to mock people who aren't "smart enough" to join his official religion.
Doesn't sound omnipotent or good.

>why do you assume that everyone is catholic to begin with?
In the OP. I'm staying on topic, I don't know what you are trying to do.

>He knows not one future but all futures and us perfectly
Look man. I know you want to believe in cosmic goodness. But you'll never have it if you throw away logic.

It is incompatible for your decisions to be meaningful if the answers are already known, and a deity is hiding them from you for fun.

Contrary to religious dogma, for human life to have meaning, an omniscient deity cannot exist.

It's up to humanity to make a good future. Not any mythological character.

ok, now you just sound pathethic.
My last words to you would be, that if you dont understand something, doesn't make it less real or irreasonable. It just speaks of stubbornness or less intellectual capacity of one.

>ok, now you just sound pathethic.
That wasn't me.

>that if you dont understand something, doesn't make it less real or irreasonable
This however is honestly something you may wish to look at yourself, in terms of genuinely considering alternatives to mythology.

Biology provides well for altruism and caring, while science provides for the desire to figure out the workings of the universe.

Which we cannot do if we presume we already know.