[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/lit/ - Literature

View post   
File: 111 KB, 410x356, 1522940302440.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13847566 No.13847566 [Reply] [Original]

If God is omniscient and knows all things because he is eternal and therefore outside of time, and knows every choice we will make in our lives, then why do Christians believe that humans have free will and we aren't subject to predestination? I used to think that Calvinism and predestination was retarded until I was made aware that a all knowing, all present God who knows our every choice and action means that our lives are already determined. If we go to heaven it's because we were predestined to.
Discuss and post literature that relates to this question and will allow me to gain greater insight and understanding.

>> No.13847570 [DELETED] 

>>13847566
It's almost like religion makes no fucking sense...

>> No.13847571

Predestination =/= determinism

Read more :3

>> No.13847577

>>13847566
Romans 9
10 Not only that, but Rebekah’s children were conceived at the same time by our father Isaac. 11 Yet, before the twins were born or had done anything good or bad—in order that God’s purpose in election might stand: 12 not by works but by him who calls—she was told, “The older will serve the younger.” 13 Just as it is written: “Jacob I loved, but Esau I hated.”

14 What then shall we say? Is God unjust? Not at all! 15 For he says to Moses,

“I will have mercy on whom I have mercy,
and I will have compassion on whom I have compassion.”
16 It does not, therefore, depend on human desire or effort, but on God’s mercy. 17 For Scripture says to Pharaoh: “I raised you up for this very purpose, that I might display my power in you and that my name might be proclaimed in all the earth.”18 Therefore God has mercy on whom he wants to have mercy, and he hardens whom he wants to harden.

19 One of you will say to me: “Then why does God still blame us? For who is able to resist his will?” 20 But who are you, a human being, to talk back to God? “Shall what is formed say to the one who formed it, ‘Why did you make me like this?’” 21 Does not the potter have the right to make out of the same lump of clay some pottery for special purposes and some for common use?

22 What if God, although choosing to show his wrath and make his power known, bore with great patience the objects of his wrath—prepared for destruction? 23 What if he did this to make the riches of his glory known to the objects of his mercy, whom he prepared in advance for glory— 24 even us, whom he also called, not only from the Jews but also from the Gentiles?

>> No.13847578

>>13847571
I would like to. Any places I should start with?

>> No.13847584

>>13847566
oh good
another fucking religion thread
this board just doesn't have enough of those
thank you anon
THANK YOU

>> No.13847588

>>13847566
God knows at every turn for every stone the consequences thereof. You need only inquire within, for nothing understood complete from below or above

>> No.13847589

>>13847577
Now go through the Bible and see if you can find a verse that says “God loves our freedom SO much that he allows evil for OUR sake.” Not only is this unsupported, but it’s illogical. Jesus had free will, yet he did no evil. A being with free will shouldn’t choose evil, anyway. Why would he? It makes more sense that someone would only do that which harms him if he were NOT free.

>> No.13847591

>>13847584
It's a philosophy thread, first of all.

>> No.13847600

>>13847578
Kierkegaard.

Specifically? Thy Sickness Unto Death

>> No.13847601

>>13847578
http://www.andrewmbailey.com/ap/Ockhams_Way_Out.pdf
There is plenty of talk about divine forknowledge and human freedom in the philosophy of religion. Look more from Alvin Plantinga or William Lane Craig

>> No.13847609

>>13847584
go back

>> No.13847616

>>13847566
>Discuss and post literature that relates to this question and will allow me to gain greater insight and understanding.
pic related
inb4 confederacy of dunces
also, congratulations on turning 15 OP you dumb faggot

>> No.13847624

>>13847616
>also, congratulations on turning 15 OP you dumb faggot
If you think some retarded zoomer teenager gives a shit about these kinds of questions then you're the actual dumb faggot.
Also, nice pic, dumbass

>> No.13847632

>>13847609s
yeah fuck off anon

>>13847591
my philosophy is that you are a tedious fucknut and you and all your pathetic godbothering mates should fuck off
wow was that my free will to say that or was it predestined? who fucking cares

>> No.13847635

>>13847566
It is because we are made in the image of God which means that we are made to be free creators like God is.

So the whole developmental history of the material and the spiritual worlds was created by god to result in us. A bein that is capable of being free. Now, because we are free in spirit, we are also free to chose the wrong path, the lie and deceit. God is up for an experiment. He won't interfere no more directly. Although he is of course omnipresent as the "unbedingter bedinger" the unconditional conditioner. God is space and time.

Now you should definitly read into Psychoanalysis, escpecially Jung and Antroposophie i.e. Rudolf Steiner. Reading Wilhelm Reich and the basics of Freud and especially his Biography will give more fundamental psychological and somewhat of an "libido-economic" perspective on the whole phenomena of religion as well as on the spriritual being of man.

>> No.13847638

>>13847624
well adults certainly don't

>> No.13847649

>>13847632
go back toreddit you brainlet

>> No.13847653

>>13847635
>It is because we are made in the image of God which means that we are made to be free creators like God is.
No, it just means we have dominion over life and earth, as God has dominion over all of existence. That is exactly what Genesis says

>> No.13847658

>>13847566
Does God have a free will?
>God is omnipotent and omniscient
>omniscience also means He knows the future including all the "possible" (but not really) versions, and the true version)
>can God change the future?
>if yes, then He's not omniscient, since He didn't know, that the vision of future He had before making the change was not the definitive one; if He realized that the future He knows about requires some actions on His part, then He never had a choice and it wasn't exactly a change in any way
>if no, then He's not omnipotent, and He's a subject to fate, destiny, whatever you want to call it

>> No.13847668

>>13847632
Good to know you're putting your degree in atheism from High School University to good use.
It's just a philosophical question, if you don't like it then hide the thread.

>> No.13847669

>>13847638
Some do, obviously

>> No.13847707

>>13847649
do you even know what site this is you daft fucking noodle
if you want to talk about your useless religion without anyone disagreeing with you fuck off to wahwahdontbenastytome.com

>>13847668
i couldn't get into high school university, i had to go to UCL instead

>> No.13847713

>>13847653
If by life you mean material existence than I agree to a certain extant. Because it seems to me that humans can break the rules of nature that we discoverd as physics but that only seems to work in a small scale and scope.

your correction is very welcome. I'm not that well read in the bible to be frank.

>> No.13847720

>>13847707
>Britcuck
That explains it. Don't reply to me ever again, I'm done responding to you. Make sure you hide you butterknives or you'll get in trouble and pay for your TV license before they take that away too.

>> No.13847744

>>13847658
>can God change the future?
The question implies that God would ever make an imperfect choice, which is an internal contradiction, as such it's a non-entity, as such not a limit to omipotence because only possible things are possible. Impossible things are not possible so God not creating a square circle or a rock so heavy he can't lift are not arguments against hismomipotence because abovementioned examples are nonentities.
If something is internally contradictory in its essence it is not part of "everything" because it's a nonentity.

>> No.13847788

>>13847707
you don't have anything of value to add to this thread. So I kindly suggest you to go back to r/atheism

>> No.13847820

>>13847658
this is based on a horrible view of possibility.
God has omniscience, which entails forknowledge and (I hold) Middleknowledge (if x were true, then y would have happened). Because God has Middle knowledge he can select the best possible "world" and then actualize it, making it "the reality, the truth".
He retains his omnipotence (he selects whatever possible world to actualize) and his omniscience (he knows all the possible worlds).

>> No.13847884

>>13847744
Can God be truly perfect if He always has to act perfectly and as such, may not pick an imperfect option?
>>13847820
As an omniscient being, He also always knew which "reality" will happen.

>> No.13847902

>>13847884
Do you make decisions of which you know to be based in falsehood, which would harm you but you choose them anyways?

>> No.13847933

>>13847902
Well, at least I can do that

>> No.13847955

>>13847884
He knew which world was the best one, so yes, he knew which he would choose. Is that a problem?

>> No.13848001

>>13847566
>what is compatibilism

>> No.13848007

>>13847884
Again, thats an internal contradiction and a nonentity.
God is always perfect and everything he does is always perfect.
The idea that he would perform something that is not perfect is an internal contradiction that is not included in "everything" because its a nonentity as such its not a limit on his power.
>>13847933
He also can, but does not, because He is perfect.
Doing imperfect things is not a virtue.

>> No.13848042

>>13848007
there is no such thing as "nonentity"
And I can't see that God does only "perfect" thing, for clearly he did things that (unless given the context background) have negative moral atributes (the enslavement of the jews).

>> No.13848058

>>13848042
its literally impossible for God to act immorally because Christ is Logos, the underlying order and such of the universe.

>> No.13848063

>>13847566
First of all, "free will" is impossible.
Second of all, God doesn't exist.

>> No.13848082

>>13848042
>there is no such thing as "nonentity"
Oh? Draw a square circle then, faggot.
You cant because its a nonentity.

>> No.13848094

>>13848042
>And I can't see that God does only "perfect" thing
your human opinions matter nothing

>> No.13848104

>>13847566
christian "free will" =/= liberal "free will."

>> No.13848122

>>13848082
so there exist things that don't exist? Is that your position?
"there are such things as nonentities"
"a square circle is a nonentity"
"there exists square circles that don't exist"
remind me how you hold the coherent view here.

>> No.13848133

>>13848094
I printed out an inconsistency, instead of using the word "perfect or perfection" I would use the word good. For Perfection does not entail actions that have a negative moral atributes. But Goodness might have such a thing, in contrast with the others.

>> No.13848135

>>13847658
>>13847820

An omnipotent/omnisentient being exists outside the concept of time; as his imagination is always imagining all possible states of existence at once - a future has no meaning, nor does reality. This being would be "simulating" all possible outcomes of all things, all realities - ones where i am here and write this post, and others where i am not. Hence - there is no free will for us, as we are only a glimmer of the imagination of a god. What that implies about the state of reality is irrelevant, as there is no dividing line between imagination and reality to something omni-scient/potent

>> No.13848141

>>13848042
You should think about the distinction between the godhead image and actual god. The christian "god" is not identical with the actual cosmic process within which everything exists i.e. actual god

>> No.13848143

>>13848063
yeah, yeah and you were determined to think that, say that and post that here. A very rational position indeed

>> No.13848146

>>13848042
>there is no such thing as "nonentity"
>be atheist
>encounter something that bothers you
>IT DOESNT REAL CAUSE I DONT WANNA DEAL WITH THIS
lol can you be any more retarded then this?

also
>there is no such thing as "nonentity"
>presents theists with nonentities as if they were a real thing they should explain
Atheists are truly the retards of /lit

>> No.13848156

>>13847584
www.reddit.com
The ironic thing is, your midwitry and rage makes religious posters look intelligent. Catholic and orthodog posters here at least write well. Your post. It is just telling of a low IQ. I dont believe in god by the way.

>> No.13848157

>>13848141
what you said is irelevant to my point. Thus, a red hering

>> No.13848167

>>13848135
see
>>13848143

>> No.13848181
File: 67 KB, 566x480, 1515405364206.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13848181

>>13848122
you literally don't even know what the term "exist" means. go read some wikipedia articles and try again, sweaty.

>> No.13848187

>>13848146
>God doesn't exist but square circles do
really makes you think.

>> No.13848193

>>13848167
Sure. What really fascinates me is the fact that an omniscient being transcends the boundary between real and imagined. That their imagination would be so powerful that it would be real.

>> No.13848197

>>13848146
I'm a Christina you nigger head, I pointed out how your "nonentity" theory commits you meinongianism

>> No.13848204

>>13848122
You are so dumb.
You saying that God isn't omnipotent because he can't do something that is a nonentity is literally like farting in the wind. It stinks a little but doesn't alter the course of the flow.

When you say that God is not omnipotent because he can't create a square circle you are wrong, because a square circle is a nonentity and its a nonentity because its an internal contradiction. God acting imperfectly is also an internal contradiction, as such its a nonentity like a square circle. God always acts perfectly, not because he is limited in any way but because an "imperfect act done by a being that always acts perfectly" is a nonentity.

>> No.13848214

>>13848181
a tripfag tells me to read w a Wikipedia page for a philosophical concept. You nigger have ever heard of Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy?

>> No.13848216

>>13848187
>God doesn't exist but square circles do
How did you even come to this conclusion you retard? Square circles are a nonentity. They dont real you dumb idiot.

>> No.13848219

>>13847566
Haven't read the thread but the answer is God exists outside of time. He isn't here with us looking back to the past and forward to the future, God sees it all at once.

Imagine filming someone doing something for a few minutes then looking at the frames of the video on the computer. You see the start, middle and end of the video all at the same time. The person in the video has made all the choices themselves. But you can see what they're doing at the end, and the beginning, and throughout the video all at the same time. So it is with God.

>> No.13848224
File: 48 KB, 600x579, BACK.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13848224

>>13848214
>tripfag
its time for you to go now.

>> No.13848227

>>13848204
blabbering blabbering
are there such things as non entities?
If yes
is a square circle a non entity?
If yea
then there are things as square circles (that also don't exist)

>> No.13848230

>>13848197
>I'm a Christina
tits or gtfo

>> No.13848240

>>13848227
>are there such things as non entities?
No there aren't. Thats the point.

>> No.13848246

>>13848216
yes, i was pointing out the retardation of the anon who thinks that nonentities "exist" but doesn't think that God "exists," because by his own retarded use of the term and the logic of his post, God would have to "exist" as well.

>> No.13848260

>>13848240
that was my point from the start you nigger, now you can safely stop using that word, as you confirmed for yourself.

>> No.13848267

>>13848246
I think you misunderstood something.
God exists.
Nonentities don't exist, and can't exist because they are internal contradictions.
Therefore God not being able to create a nonentity doesn't injure his omnipotence.

>> No.13848268

>>13848260
No your point was that God is not omnipotent because he cant create a nonentity which is retarded.

>> No.13848278

>>13848268
where?

>> No.13848289

>>13848267
contradictions is the word you are searching

>> No.13848292

>>13847566
Paradise Lost has a paragraph talking about this.
I don't agree with Milton though, I believe God is not omniscient. Otherwise there would be no need for evil to exist.

>> No.13848300

>>13848292
why?

>> No.13848321

>>13848246
He was literally saying that God exists you mong...

>> No.13848337

>>13847577
>is God unjust? No! He just does things that are by definition unjust and your job is to turn off your brain and obey

lmao how does anyone take this shit seriously?

>> No.13848364

>>13848337
Define just

>> No.13848423

>>13848321
>>13848267
okay, the whole thing that threw me off was where he said
>there is no such thing as "nonentity"
i read it as him saying that nonentities aren't a concept at all that we can even talk about, not that he was saying they don't exist. i think this anon was confused by the wording in the same way>>13848082

>> No.13848450
File: 12 KB, 480x360, Van Til.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13848450

>>13847566
You're almost there

>> No.13848456

>>13847566
Foreknowledge does not imply predestination and pseuds need to stop pretending that it does.

>> No.13848460

>>13847566
omniscience is a hard word to parse. I don't know that it quite means that.

anyway. suppose you have a dog and you know that dog well. if you give him food he runs over immediately to eat. you know he is going to do that, because you know your dog so well. that doesn't mean it was determined

>> No.13848473

>>13847566
At the precise point this elucidation occurs first the individual determines whether they will enter the kingdom of heaven.
But what of Him? What does He see for Himself and does He act on it? Can He?

>> No.13848542

>>13848460
I heard this same argument on here months ago. First, you aren’t actually omniscient. A truly omniscient being would know the position of every atom and everything that has influence on the world and be able to calculate the exact position of everything at a later time. You would have 100% confidence that the dog would eat the treat. And if you can predict the future based on the present, then that means you understand the mechanism whereby this world is determined.

>> No.13848587 [DELETED] 
File: 180 KB, 1134x851, 11.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13848587

>>13848456
this

>> No.13848656
File: 17 KB, 285x279, 1545249700849.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13848656

>>13848587
>there are coomers out there who idolize this

>> No.13848670
File: 370 KB, 602x718, OK6W_koKDTOqqqLDbIoPAh-vxPlAHikMQ1DcUsI1icA.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13848670

>>13848587
THIS IS AN SFW BOARD

>> No.13848690

>>13848587
is posting that fat whale worth the ban?

>> No.13848701
File: 166 KB, 577x535, Freedom cannot be conceived simply.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13848701

>>13847566
I'm a Catholic and I think that's a question that's difficult to answer.

There are technical theological/philosophical answers which I'm not sure I find persuasive.

I believe in free will as a matter of faith. I don't think it's an unreasonable belief, once one accepts the idea of God and creation.

A God that can create the universe, and you, and me, can also give his human creatures the *gift* of free will, which is how I understand it.

Also helpful:
(i) the distinction between matter and spirit that Frank Sheed discusses in the early pages of his useful book "Theology for Beginners." It is a surprisingly difficult concept to really get one's head around.

https://www.amazon.com/Theology-Beginners-Frank-Sheed/dp/1621641198

Free will is a *spiritual* gift. I don't know that's it's possible to make sense of it in strictly material/mechanical terms.

(ii) Flannery O'Connor's remark about free will, which she made in her introduction to the second edition of her novel, Wise Blood -- attached. To wit: we have different wills, as it were, pushing and pulling within us. *That* is the relevant context in which free will arises.

Catholics believe in both free will *and* predestination, btw. The subject gets into some rather deep waters theologically, including historical disputes about, e.g., Augustine's position on the subject (both Catholics and Protestants claim Augustine on the subject predestination).

Fernand Prat's two-volume "The Theology of Saint Paul" (circa 1927) is a deep but accessible (and very enlightening) dive into Pauline theology from a Catholic pov that offers Prat's learned views on Augustine and predestination -- noting how Augustine's views changed, and those changes, plus a certain ambiguity in some of his remarks, gave rise to Catholic-Protestant disputes about which "side" Augustine is on. Not being the scholarly type myself, his exposition of this is all a bit much for me to keep straight in my mind a week (or perhaps 10 minutes) after I've finished reading it. But he does sort it out with some considerable scholarly authority, while being a fairly good prose stylist, to boot.

PS: Underlined remark upon opening to a random page in Prat:

>The will of God respect the liberty of his creatures and does not always attain its effect. That is why we pray every day that the will of God may be done more and more, on earth as it is in heaven.
-F. Prat, Theology of St. Paul, vol. 2, p. 81.

>> No.13848759

>>13848542
it is true that if you understand the mechanism you can predict, but the converse does not follow

you can make predictions without there necessarily being a mechanism. the example I was trying to get across with the dog is familiarity with somethings character and preferences.


even so if you push my hard on this I am compatiblist. yeah people's reasons and ideas are determined by their experience. but I think a fine definition of free Will is being able to choose from the options you are aware of. expressing preference is will.

>> No.13848879

>>13848759
I would rather define free will as being able to decide and act upon what is good for you. I don’t see the purpose in having free will unless it is a benefit. That’s why I hate when people say that evil is necessary given that people have free will. But it makes more sense that people choose evil without free will than with it. If could truly freely choose between the good and the evil, then why wouldn’t everyone always choose the good? That is why I think no one truly has free will, and under my definition, no one has maximum free will but God.

>> No.13849060

>>13847566
>why do Christians believe that humans have free will and we aren't subject to predestination?

Because they are overgrown children suffering from congenital retardation. Get this shit off the board already

>> No.13849088
File: 38 KB, 600x568, 1520572359373.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13849088

>>13849060

>> No.13849160

>>13847571
Can you guys actually explain this. I've looked here and there and all answers simply say "God knows what you will choose but that doesn't mean you can't choose otherwise" and stop right there, as if, in their eyes, that sentence was a self-explaining answer.

>> No.13849170

>>13849160
Just read >>13847577

The matter should be settled

>> No.13849231

predestination is compatible with pure monism, if you're able to acknowledge that all emanations of god are temporary and illusory, i.e all of us. however, the speculating the question of ' does god has a giant database?' is spurious. if we're all emanations of god then we will all be returning to god (eventually), regardless of how long it takes. putting positive attributes on god only serves to make you lose your mind, which is why vedanta and some forms of buddhism are better than christianity for actual metaphysics. god said "I am that I am", which is pure awareness without attributes

>> No.13849806

>>13847624
Oh yeah I forgot my pic woops
anyway, my inb4 should have tipped you off to what the pic would have been anyway. The fact that it didn't just proves your a zoomer so there

>> No.13850361

>>13848423
Now back to the whole "non entity" debacle. I was saying that "non entity" is both a thing that can't exist and that it's stupid as a term. We now both agree that it can't exist, now let's look at the wording and meaning.
At first glance
1) a non-entity =def an impossible state of affairs that can't be actualized.
this look kinda ok prima facie, but it says nothing more than calling something a contradiction.
Now let's look at entities
2) Entity =def something that has separate and distinct existence and objective or conceptual reality; independent, separate, or self-contained existence.
Negating this definition (with non) gives us this:
3) Non-entity =def something that does not have separate or distinct existence or does not have objective or conceptul reality; dependent, inseparable existence.

Now here clearly is not the case that 1) and 3) are the same, as we can see that "a hole" checks 3) but not 1) and so does "day", "night" and all things that don't have a "positive ontology".
Thus the term is spurious and vacuous.
One more thing to add, let's look at entities and then put a non in from of them:
Apple - it's clear what it is.
Non-Apple - not clear, the closest definition I can come with is, "the proposition "this in an apple" is false about this".
More than that, I can't see how you can see this as a contradiction because you put an "non" in front of it.

In conclusion, use "contradiction" and not terms that have weird/problematic definitions/phrasing.

>> No.13850638

>>13848156
This. The religious cunts here are fine and often foster good discussion (not the LARPers tho). The nu-atheists or other aphilosophical religious cunts (that is what they are) don't seem to read or discuss anything. Just here to kill the good parts of the board and post eceleb gossip.

>> No.13850765

>>13848219
I’m an agnostic verging on atheist, but this seems like the most convincing response so far.

If I were a theist arguing for free will, I would probably say also that there are an infinite number of realities corresponding to all possible choices (or exertions of will) made by man, and god knows them all.

>> No.13850784

>>13850361
>Apple - it's clear what it is.
>Non-Apple - not clear, the closest definition I can come with is, "the proposition "this in an apple" is false about this".

Bad example.
An apple is an existing thing, it is clear what it is.
A non-apple is just the negation of an apple but it could be anything else. A non-apple can be an orange. It's not a contradiction, thus not a non-entity.
Neither nonapples or apples are nonentities, because there is nothing inhrently contradictory about being an apple or being a non-apple.

A nonentity would be something that is an apple and non-apple at the same time, because that is an internal contradiction.

As such, saying that an omnipotent being is limited by a nonentity is a nonentity in and of itself.

Example:
God isn't omnipotent because he can't create a square circle.
The square circle is a non-entity because it's a square and a non-square(a circle is not a square) at the same time.
Saying that God is not omnipotent because he can't create a non-entity is a nonentity in itself, because you are saying that a nonentity is an entity which is an internal contradiction.

>> No.13850824

>>13847566
He knows what we will do but he hasn't determined it.
I know that if I drop an apple it will fall to the ground. But me knowing that is not what has determined it.

>> No.13850923

>>13850824
So he knew what would happen if he created mankind, but he still did it anyway? If Hell is in fact a place of eternal torment then God knowingly condemned the greater portion of humanity to it.

>> No.13850937

>>13850784
I won't reply in a wall of text, it's too tiring.
First, you missuse the "non"; "non" or "not" is used in logic to negate a logical proposition, to turn its value from True to False and False to True. Thus p and non-p (¬p) have a thorough definition and use, where p is a Logical Proposition (one which can have only True or False as its values).
Using spurious words like "non-apples" won't help anybody.
And a last rebuttal:
How can you "negate" the entity and not all of its properties? An apple is a fruit, so a non-apple is a non-fruit, clearly an orange can't be a non-apple.
Now you didn't respond to my actual argument of the definition of "non-entity" so I will take that you agree with it.

>> No.13851008

>>13850937
>being this desperate
He already provided a pretty easy to grasp definition of what he means and your semantic spergery was dismissed because by the example you gave it is clear that you didn't understand what he meant or you're willfully feigning ignorance.
A non-entity is an internally contradictory idea that can never manifest. It literally doesn't and can not exist, as such using it as an argument against the omnipotence of God is not valid.
You can't even conceive of a square circle and you definitely can't visualize it.

>> No.13851026
File: 800 KB, 255x200, fried chicken black guy dance.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13851026

everything is contradictory
even god

>> No.13851027

>>13851008
read this again
>>13850361

>> No.13851126

>>13847577
This is pretty ironclad. I was a Christian who rejected predestination and then one day I was praying about something else entirely and I heard "It is I who chooses My people." Being completely unironic.
Ever since then I have been a determinist on top of being a Calvinist and it confused the shit out of my friends because I had been such a vitriolic hater of Calvinism and so ardent about free will. It was a night and day change, I remember one asking me "just like that?"

>> No.13851137

>>13847635
The Bible itself says that humans are not free in the way that idealists speak of today though. It says repeatedly that our natures heavily incline us towards evil. If we were truly free then why wasn't a single one of us good? We aren't free, we are trapped as sinners until Christ redeems us.

>> No.13851169

All men are damned without the call of God's irresistible Grace.
If people truly had free will we would be living in a utopian society by now, but people do not have such a fantastical freedom.
Many men are simply slaves to their desires, unable to resist the temptations of Sin.

>> No.13851519

>>13848473
Bump

>> No.13851739

>>13847566
Voliscience -- he knows as much as he like, when he likes.

>> No.13851918
File: 2.67 MB, 1920x1080, 1499562490143.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
13851918

>>13847566
>if you make a choice and God knows you made it, how can you have free-will? Checkmate smart people

>> No.13851927

Read genesis

>> No.13851971

>>13851918
This^
Checkmate theists.
Also forget the future. Think about the past. God knows the past, you can't change all those choices you made back then, so how can you have free-will?

Now think about the future, you can't change the choices you will make, bazinga. Check Triple M8, m8 you got ZAPPED with dialectic logic.

Atheist big brain big ball N8ggers

>> No.13851991

>>13851971
Not all theists believe in free will

>> No.13852014

>>13851991
calvin is retard

>> No.13852040

>>13852014
not an argument

>> No.13852078

Turns out God exists and he DOES have a plan for you, but it might involve you and your girlfriend getting raped by a pack of niggers and then being dumped in a ditch. Mysterious ways indeed. No matter though, free tickets to heaven amarite? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯