"All knowing"

[ajazali]

Re: “All knowing”

@kakaballi

Then perhaps our definitions of relevance do not match. We leave it there.

A believer cannot question? The way ‘believers’ patronize those who question the beliefs makes me less of a believer though.

You can ask questions, no one is stopping you!

If you program a software where objects in the software behave in a way that you determined at the inception, would it be fair to judge their behavior at the ‘end’ of execution the program?

So, are you sure that God programmed us same way we do programming?

There is a whole spectrum of beliefs among ‘believer and disbelievers’. My ‘beliefs’ if you will, can be summarized in post #55. Why force someone to choose sides? I am not questioning existance of God. I am questioning the qualities of the God that people attribute to Him.

If you deny the ‘all knowing’ quality then you are dropping the idea of the God, the One.

No. Foreknowledge of things that CANNOT BE CHANGED NO MATTER WHAT implies predetermination. If you call it assumption, that’s your option. If God;

1. knows everything that is going to happen, and
2. those things cannot be changed whatever you do,

it simply means someone (most probably God) has predetermined them. If they were not predetermined, they could be changed.

It can neither be rejected nor accepted scientifically. As a believer you can believe that you have free will, and God is all knowing.

I am not ‘undermining’ God. I am simply saying that what has not yet happened does not exist and God not knowing something that doesn’t exist is not a big deal.

Still avoiding the question: Is it fair to punish me for something I do that I was already decreed to do even before my birth and I had no choice but to do it?

Didn’t you imply you would rather believe in such God that would not ‘all knowing’?
If yes, then doesn’t ‘not all knowing’ imply ‘not all powerful’?
Would be satisfied with not all powerful God?

Yes I am avoiding you paradox because it can neither be approved nor disapproved, scientifically. Aren’t you avoiding my point?

And you missed following points
point 1: All i am asking is if you cannot validate yourself just bring some real scientist’s work which proves that determinism involving human being actions can be validated empirically.

point 2: My point is, claim of ‘foreknowledge implies predetermination’ is not verifiable. Remember, you said there it can be validated using negation.