Free will vs Omniscience

Yes. If your opening premise is absurd, more absurdities will follow.btw, what was the answer to how many angels on that pinhead?

^^^ it's the same with all these God discussions - they're all silly 'angels on pinhead' logic that can only resolve to 'well this is what I made up and now believe'. Pointless.

And this is a pefect example of making something up and then believing it because it fits a need. It's a self-deluding spiral. God does not love me or you and especially not Mother Teresa. If he exists at all, he shows no interest in any of us - that much is at least evidenced.

And those four words explain how the power holders in 'religious' organisations have manipulated and exploited the gullible for thousands of years.Halleluja!

No Phat, what REALLY annoys people is seemingly clever people assuming a God, assuming his powers, assuming free will then wondering why the resultant paradoxes can't be resolved.Give us a break.

Which of course condemns billions to hell; all those prior to Christianity and all those after who had the temerity to be born in places that have different beliefs. All for no fault of their own.What a load of utter bullshit. How modern people can think like this is totally beyond me, we have a long way to go before we'll put all thes primitive superstitions behind us and get on with the job of improving people's lives.

This is, of course, believer's smugness. We'll be exactly the same Faith - dead. Right, so the billions that had never heard of him can rot in hell and the billions to come who are born into different faiths can do the same. Thank god you're not a representative Christian, those opinions are quite disgraceful.

Still more nonsense. Where is all this tripe coming from? It seems that you like to believe anything that sounds contrary without providing any support for it.

Of course you do, but you're wrong.

I had faith until I was about 14. Swallowed the thing whole, believed every word. Gradually over a year or so it became blindingly obvious that it was just another made up thing of grow-ups, like Father Christmas.If you think about it for just a minute, Europe was a Christian country, the vast majority of atheists will have been born into Christian families and brought up as Christian. They had a faith and lost it.These days it's a little different, there are a large number of atheists bringing up children without being hamstrung by superstition so they didn't have a faith to lose.And, btw, 'losing' is a believers concept - there's nothing to be lost.

That's not evidence for anything except personal delusion. It's purely subjective. Your beliefs can be 'seen' using magnetic resonace imaging of your brain - that's evidence of your belief. It's absolutely no evidence that what you believe is true. I don't doubt it. I thought exactly the same about Father Christmas as I did about Jesus - both were very real. I spoke to Jesus and I left a wish list and a carrot out for Father Christmas. Unlike Jesus though there was actual evidence of Father Christmas. I asked him for a train set and he gave me one. Rudolf eat the carrot and FC left sooty footprints. When I asked Jesus to cure the deformed legs of my friend with polio, nothing happenened.Then I grew up.

What is this 'need' for spirituality? I don't have one and I don't even know what it means. It's not necessarily bad - so long as by 'bad' you mean harmful. I don't think it's more harmful than believing in Father Christmas. It's just childish - which can be a problem if it continues into adulthood. Though most everyday believers seem to function ok. If it gets literal and becomes dogmatic it does start getting dangerous. There ain't no such thing as free will. We've been over this. It just another daft religious construct. If you want to use it in my hearing, replace it with 'rational choice' - though this too is bounded. Of course. I assume you think the same of, I dunno, ancestor worship.As for Lewis Carol, his writings are regarded as one of the best examples of nonsense literature.

The evidence shows that crime has fallen steadily and sharply throughout the centuries. We are, in fact, "living in the most peaceful time of human existence." Then you're not looking in the right places - a classic case of seeing what you want to see. I suggest you read Stephen Pinker. Here's a Ted talk he did, which should be required viewing.Steven Pinker: The surprising decline in violence | TED Talk

Its seems to me that there's a big difference bewteen knowledge of the future and whether the future has been determined. Knowing the future means you see what happened from a future perspective, like looking backward out of a car window. From that perspective its only the past that is determined. Bill always chooses red because that is in fact what happened regardless of possible interventions. He can't choose any other colour because red is what you saw him choose.As was argued months ago, if you add probability and true randomness to your universe you can have indeterminate or at least probablistic outcomes but still know what happened.You know that Bill chose red because that's what you saw him do from the future, the fact that he tossed a coin to choose - so the outcome at that point could not be predicted - doesn't affect the fact that from the perspective of the future, you know he chose red.

No. It's a mixture of religious fantasy and gibberish.