Yes, your opinion MIGHT follow a concept of logic in the real world, I dont know I am honestly not sure. Mine certainly does tho. Your opinion also assumes things. Thats what opinions do, even if they might seem logical. They assume things.

So to clarify that, please, give me an example for your logic. A real world example and tell me how you apply that to god.
Here's my example for mine: Everything I know about things that will happen and arent exclusively about myself (such as self-awareness) are either caused by me or observed by me, at least as far as I know (tell me if I am wrong and give an example).
Same goes for you and everyone else. Now thats logic. If you say thats a different thing for god, then thats an assumption. Simple logic.

Also, logic is obviously a crucial part of the scientific method. Math as well. You cant have science without math and logic. I just didnt know I have to lay that out to you, thats why I specified what I said - which of course was considered a change of goalposts / a lie to you.

This post was edited by Saurod on Aug 13 2025 01:37am

Also according to the bible god created every single human being individually and also has a plan, a concept for each one of us.

If he is not responsable for our free decisions, he would not even decide who gets to live and who doesnt, because in the end we do. If he has a plan for each individual, theres causation involved. You can try to explain however you want but in the end it wont make sense. Its cherrypicking just a bunch of weird concepts to explain something that doesnt make sense.

This post was edited by Saurod on Aug 13 2025 03:33am

your claim that my logic is just an opinion is a false equivalence. my argument uses established concepts like alethic necessity and identifies a clear fallacy in your reasoning which is begging the question. this is a logical analysis, not a personal belief.

your 'real-world' example about how you acquire knowledge is flawed because it applies human limitations to an omniscient God.

you haven't provided a logical reason why God's certain knowledge of an event must be a causal force or even attempted to address my modal logic which shows it is not. you are still assuming your conclusion and lacking understanding


address my logic, stop dodging,

This post was edited by majorblood on Aug 13 2025 04:11am

You say god knows everything, but its acausal. That is what is an assumption.
There is absolutely no evidence to show that anything can be known with certainty without being the cause of it or having aquired that knowledge through observation.
If you assume that god is able to know everything that will ever happen without being the cause of it and refer to an alethic concept to make that work, you ASSUME that this is applyable in gods case.

In the real world we all have to aquire or cause things to know about them unless we talk about static thruth like rain is wet. That is alethic as far as we know (but also aquired).

This post was edited by Saurod on Aug 13 2025 04:33am

do you think empirical evidence (aka science) is the only way to establish truth?

no. it is not, in fact to state that it is demonstrates that it is a contradiction as I have proven several times and why I keep bringing it up.

why I addressed this over 200 posts ago

you're demanding empirical evidence for an attribute of God, which is a category error. my entire argument is based on the idea that God's knowledge is not acquired or observed, it is inherent and eternal. this is exactly the established paradigm we are using (Christian theology) to debate the possibility of human free will on.

which is exactly why I used modal logic to show that God (omniscient) can certainly know something without necessarily causing it. you keep erroneously using limited human knowledge and limited human minds to compare to a definitionally infinite and omniscient mind, it's again a category error.

so under the established paradigm that God is omniscience, eternal, etc etc is it logically possible that humans can have free will? Yes. I proved that logically.

This post was edited by majorblood on Aug 13 2025 05:06am

I am not demanding evidence, I demand evidenxe to debunk my stance.
I use limited human knoeledge and limited human minds because that is all we have.
Talking about what god can do or cant do is neither provable nor the opposite, so its all an assumption. My assumption is tbat god also has to follow the same logical cocepts as we do. Everything outside of that is just guessing around applying attributes to god that we suspect might be true.

The fact that you talk about a being that allegedly created everything but is still only responsable for some stuff while not responsable for some other stuff is some crazy cherrypicking and full of assumptions.

The bible contradicts itself into oblivion on this topic. God, as described in the bible, is not even clearly timeless. God in the bible also creates every single human being individually and gives it purpose. That at least you can interpret. That alone would be a contradiction to our free will of giving birth on our own terms. There is so much logical contradiction in this concept that you could write a book of its own on the topic, yet you tell me what you say is true and your logic exceeds mine. Although mine is grounded and establiahed in reality and yours isnt.

I would even go as far as to say it is absolutely ridiculous to grant the creator of all things this acausation.

what is this incoherent reply

"I am not demanding evidence, I demand evidence to debunk my stance"

the very first sentence is a contradiction.

your entire argument is based on a fundamental assumption that God's mind and knowledge must operate like a human's. this is a category error.

all we (humans) have is limited human knowledge and limited human minds, yes, but we aren't the one in question here... this is the essential and repeated category error.


what God can do and do we have free will is using the framework of Christian theology, this is the entire framework of the debate.

if you want to act under the framework of Buddhism where there is no self, i can agree under that specific framework there is self or agent to have free will.

if you want to act under the worldview of naturalism and reject God completely I could agree that there is no free will either and everything is either determined or inherently random and no actual choices are made by humans.

but the paradigm we are using to understand free will is the Christian one, where God is omniscient and does not have the same limited knowledge we have. Yes, God doesn't contradict or break logic, but God is not a limited being which is exactly why I used modal logic and proved that God (omniscient) can certainly know everything without necessarily causing everything. This means there are things he did not cause, but certainly knows still, logically leaving room for humans to cause things freely.

This post was edited by majorblood on Aug 13 2025 05:51am

The christian framework is not coherent. Christians say god is timeless, the bible doesnt say that at all. Creation had a beginning and lastet 7 days. Those are attributes of time. Which would totally dismantle the discussion because it would mean that god knew about our decision BEFORE he created us and not simultanously which would make him responsable for it no matter what.

Also the bible says that god himself creates every human being which also contradicts your view, which basically lets us create our children by our will and not his. If he has a plan of every individual being, then their existence is his decision and not ours.

Christian framework is crap. Thats why 10 people come to 10 conclusions.

Well, you've accepted defeat I guess on the logic of free will... . you are now just attacking the framework of the debate itself rather than engaging with my logic.

let's pretend "Christians say god is timeless, the bible doesnt say that at all" is true (it isn't) why are we operating under sola scriptura?

"Creation had a beginning and lastet 7 days. Those are attributes of time."

and? how does that make God (who created the creation) not eternal? how does the creation having a beginning make God (who transcends creation which includes the universe) not eternal?

"Which would totally dismantle the discussion because it would mean that god knew about our decision BEFORE he created us and not simultanously which would make him responsable for it no matter what."
how does this follow from anything you just said? this is a complete non-sequitur. again, I have proven that certainly knowing something doesn't mean necessarily caused.

"Also the bible says that god himself creates every human being which also contradicts your view, which basically lets us create our children by our will and not his."
You have literally no understanding what this means. It would be better if you used specific verses to express what the bible says.

"If he has a plan of every individual being, then their existence is his decision and not ours."

this does not follow and again you are showing a lacking of understanding of theology

the very concept of sin is based on the idea that humans have the free will to choose between God's plan and their own desires. if God's plan was an absolute, deterministic script that we could not contradict, then sin would be impossible and the concept of moral responsibility would be meaningless.

"Christian framework is crap. Thats why 10 people come to 10 conclusions."
this is a fallacy.

10 people look at 5+5 and 9 people answer "15" and 1 answers "10" does that mean "math is crap"? No.

They did figure it out.

They explained every potentiality out in full word for word.

Your inability to read really does you in here bud.

You are not "well read" at all and it shows throughout this "opinioned conversation" but what still baffles me is even after me telling you Buddhist, Hindus, and others have GREAT NOBLE arguments back and fourth about free will that you may want to read them because their IQ is 500x yours.

Concepts you have never pondered and explain detail for detail how your mind is operating and you are too lazy to read them.

Just because you don't "accept" certain answers doesn't mean EVERY potential "answer" wasn't thought out and written out going back 1500 years.

I drew my opinion from a vast well of knowledge. Knowledge is data. Knowledge is God. I drew from all corners of the Earth and every facet of the human experience because that it is what was necessary to answer this question truthfully to ones self.

The Christians explaining it to you word for word because they are kind and considerate. I am not. You are ignorant and your misguided "thoughts" aren't well placed at all. I'm constantly learning and my perception is evolving constantly. You seem to be stuck at square one of, "Am I actually in control of my life".

Not going to link any more comments from Buddha, Vivekananda, Nagarjuna, and the select few others who explained this with a 10,000 IQ. Your whole subtle jabs at the Hindus not figuring out shows just how WHITE you are. It's not a flex when the Hindus and Buddhist have GREAT answers BOTH ways and you can't even formulate one decent answer for me just to give me faith that one day you'll research into the "origins" of your "thought processes".

Have a nice day bud but I'm done with this conversation. The people who made the best debates on this are all dead and I'm just here to share their names to you so one day you look them up. Sorry for trying.