Search results

I believe that even you can "see" the future. When we use the phrase "see the future," we do so in the comprehensible, metaphorical sense. You use it to mean some apparently magic ability that only God has, but is not written about anywhere. Then why are you arguing at all? Entirely contrary...

And it's probably fruit cake.

If Peter had a choice, he might have chosen otherwise. This means it was possible that Jesus' knowledge would fail. Infallible foreknowledge and wills are mutually exclusive.

There needs to be a distinction about what it means to have foreknowledge. We would say that God can see the future, but He has not set it in stone. In the "debate" with Brain, we shouldn't give up the ground that He is in control. Also, Brain wants to avoid declaring that everything is set in...

As has been pointed out, no such precision would have been required. Jesus would have had to know Peter's state of mind and likely response, while relying on God or luck to time a rooster's "squawk."

We know your opinion. You've asserted it at least 10 times. Now justify it. Back it up with something. How is it rational to say that people have a choice when God knows what will happen, because that is prima facie contradictory. Take some inspiration from me. When you accuse me of holding an...

Maybe I've misused the word. What I mean is that God operates in sequence. He exists from moment to moment just as we do. He is not at every time all the time. However, He is eternal, from eternity to eternity. I don't know how to conceive of things operating in any other way. If you are able...

Then he might have chosen to not deny Him. Seriously? Hoping asked: What is your definition of "determined"? I answered what I think people would usually mean when talking about God determining something, ie, Hoping's second definition ("caused to be"). See? When you ask for clarification...

God is a rational being. That includes being temporal. Not that it would matter either way. My test makes only one out of determinism and wills possible. Either He created with the outcome determined or He didn't. One means determinism, the other allows wills.

Agreed. However, those are explanations based on an understanding of the individual. Predictions of how people might act might be easy to get right, but they never eradicate the will.

Lazarus. It would seem the better way rather than the way he actually went. Still, though. At least it's not mint chocolate chip.

I know, right?

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.