Search results

It doesn't really matter. I guess the latter would be what most people would say when asked what it meant for God. But Brain doesn't want to answer questions. I don't see how.

Do you think Peter had a choice?

That's right. Of course it's for real. Cool. Now, do you have an answer or are you just going to wail all day? Yip. Peter could have not denied Him. We're happy you're entertained. However, it's still irrational.

How could it be any more clear? You asserted: Jesus "could hardly be wrong." We want to know why He could not be wrong. Because you say so? Uh huh. We know. And He was right. He would have been astonished if He were. Is He a rational being? Because foreknowledge without determinism is...

You don't have to repeat it. Just give the post number. Then God does not know.

Yes, that was my response. Do you have an answer or are we just supposed to believe you that Peter could not have done other than deny Christ? No. Are you just making things up for people to believe to ruin another discussion? Maybe you're just here for trolling reasons. When are you going...

What obvious counter? Your assertion? It's meant to be. Yet, there it is. Big scoop, actually. The challenge is: Does the man have a choice? That is the challenge. We know why you are avoiding it. That's not the challenge. It's what you've glommed onto to avoid the challenge. Where?

Why not? Because you say so? Uh huh. You don't seem to comprehend what this discussion is about. Nobody is arguing with you about how confident Jesus was.

All we have is your assertion that a difference between foreknowledge and determinism when applied to God must allow for wills to exist. Describe how. Explain how God could know without having determined. Or are we supposed to take it on faith? We don't want you to keep repeating yourself. We...

Jesus was right about what Peter would do. What you need to do is explain how this fact means that your assessment of how He knows is correct. So far all we have is your assertion that it must be so and numerous attempts to avoid the challenge.

If it's basic, explain it. How can God know if it is not determined? Is His knowledge fallible? If someone saw a list of outcomes, would they be able to decide in opposition to them? Explain your ideas instead of just asserting them and ignoring the challenge. I don't think you have the first...

Blunt and clear on what matter? That your explanation of how He knew was the one everyone should hold to?

They are the same thing. Foreknowledge is the same as determinism when it comes to a creator. It was a question. How is that an opinion? We know why you hate the question. Only because you can use it to dodge the challenge. You'll be able to quote me saying that God does not know the...

Yip. What does that mean? It reads as it reads. You are the one declaring it is evidence for exhaustive foreknowledge. That's exactly our explanation if from this example the extrapolation is not made that God knows every decision infallibly. The distinction between our explanations is that...

Because you say so? If God knows, it is determined. If it's not determined, He doesn't know.

No. You're just declaring that the same setup said twice using different words is two distinct ideas because of your assertion of God's relationship with time. You don't provide any reasons or scripture. Just your opinion. Meanwhile, the challenge remains. Foreknowledge precludes a will as...

This shows that God was right about what Peter would do, not that Peter had no choice.

So you have a "nonlinear frame of reference and understanding"? Explain to us how you got this "frame" and how it means that what God knows will happen is not determined.

It ain't my job to explain what you mean. Because the outcome is determined. It will be as God knows. Understand now? I'm guessing no, but hope springs eternal an' all that.

If we have a choice, He doesn't know. If He knows, we don't have a choice. It's as simple as that.