>>280272
>Or is that you
Yes.
>It is literally the first line of the paragraph he replied to.
Confucianism and Hinduism are
NOT monotheistic and has nothing to do with that discussion.
THAT discussion was the guy trying to explain how you can create morality without religion.
>It's pretty clear, and I couldn't reword his post in any way that isn't just adding fluff.
<Doing what is considered to be "good" is more effective than doing what is considered to be "evil", good and evil are simply a case of effectiveness
Okay, you're correct, I misunderstood that section. In which case, under that concept, murder is far easier than bartering as I can kill the person who has what I want rather than waste my time figuring out what he wants.
>Why does it have to be when Adam ate the fruit?
Because it's one of the places where the Bible talks about places and concepts beyond our own universe.
>The actions of one with the knowledge of the future and thus the ability to alter it at will
>and thus the ability to alter it at will
There's your problem with this discussion. The future, every possible future, has already been known, and therefor already "written", by God.
>That's an entirely tangential point.
No, it's the entire basis for their arguments.
>You said atheists don't disagree that humans are imperfect like it was some sort of point in favor of religion.
Yes, because there is only one other alternative if humans are
not perfect beings, and that is that we
already ARE perfect. That we are the "Final man", the Ubermensch, by just simply existing, in which case, what's the point of anything if we've already won by just being here.
>Just because something on rails can be enjoyed doesn't change the fact that an omniscient God deprives man of free will.
You have a choice the entire time.
>the ability to have some agency within constraints is one of the reasons people like videogames and hate movie games
You mean like how people "hate"
Asura's Wrath and
Blood Omen: LoK?
>Yes, my point being that a reality with predetermination isn't analogous to a recipe because it is unalterable.
It is analogous because you know the results changes based on your actions.
>>280275
>Because your choice to follow the instructions is predetermined if God already knows whether you'll follow them or not.
So, the fact that I burn my hand, and know that I will burn my hand, if I
choose to touch a hot stove is evidence of the fact that free will doesn't exist because only one possible outcome is possible as a result of me touching a hot stove?
>You can disregard instructions.
And, you know the results will change due to your actions.
>You cannot alter the future
Yes, you can.
Your future.
>Should that being bestow any of the knowledge of the future upon you, he already knew exactly how that would change the future to a simply different predetermined future which you as a lower being still have no real choice in.
Hold on, that's a completely
different discussion that opens up a whole series of questions. How much is shown? Is it just the end result or the entire story? Is it one possible outcome or all the possible outcomes? Do any of the outcomes shown to you happen as a result of having this knowledge, or are they a lack of it?
>If he merely knew all possibilities, but not which one would happen, then he doesn't really know everything and is not omniscient.
The problem, at least the one you're presenting, is the argument is dependent upon God
NOT knowing how the story ends. It relies upon trying to make the argument that God is
NOT omniscient. However, everything shown provides the exact opposite. God does know how the story ends, he knows all the possible ways the story can end.
We do not because we are not God, and that seems to be the one aspect of this argument you do not understand. God exists beyond our comprehension of space and time, but this argument keeps returning trying to confine a God beyond ourselves to our understandings of reality.