Pray all you want, but

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Please show me how I commit that fallacy, since I acknowledge that we can never fully understand God? We can still understand parts, but never everything.

"Solipsism" is also used to denote an argument in which we can't understand the nature of something, so it's useless to question it. It's a bastardization of the philosophical position, yes.

Please define omniscient, since our difference seems to be in the definition.

I did define it. Note where I said: "Omniscience requires knowledge of everything."

Omniscience requires infinite knowledge. If god were denied the knowledge of what path a person were to choose, his knowledge would be finite, and therefore he wouldn't be omniscient.

The eyes of the LORD are everywhere,
keeping watch on the wicked and the good."

All seeing != all knowing.

"Where then does wisdom come from?
Where does understanding dwell?
It is hidden from the eyes of every living thing,
concealed even from the birds of the air.
Destruction [3] and Death say,
'Only a rumor of it has reached our ears.'
God understands the way to it
and he alone knows where it dwells,
for he views the ends of the earth
and sees everything under the heavens.

Again, All seeing != all knowing.

"I declare the end from the beginning, and from ancient times the things are not yet done what is still to come.
I say: My purpose will stand, and I will do all that I please."

This just seems to bolster my point that god doesn't answer prayers and can't change his mind, since he has pre-ordained everything since the beginning. If he does answer a prayer, then he knew since the beginning he would answer the prayer. If he was destined to answer the prayer, then the person making the prayer was destined to make it. That would negate free will.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Lincoln
Judas had the "free will" to do what he was ordained to do.

But that's not freewill, since he could not avoid the outcome.

[Ben Kenobi]

"Omniscience requires knowledge of everything."

Omniscience requires infinite knowledge. If god were denied the knowledge of what path a person were to choose, his knowledge would be finite, and therefore he wouldn't be omniscient.

On the contrary, he would be omniscient. He would know the outcome of all of the possible decisions that a person makes.

Secondly, I don't think you fully acknowledge the consequences of your version of predestination. First off, you would have absolutely no choices whatsoever.

Finally, have you now renounced atheism? In order to justify your position, you must assume the existence of God. What use is it to argue a position that you don't believe?

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
On the contrary, he would be omniscient. He would know the outcome of all of the possible decisions that a person makes.

I'll say it again... if god doesn't know exactly what a person will do, only what he may do, then god is not omniscient. Not knowing something (what the person will actually do) is a limit on god's knowledge, making it finite.

Secondly, I don't think you fully acknowledge the consequences of your version of predestination. First off, you would have absolutely no choices whatsoever.

It does seem that way, don't it? Note how I mentioned it would negate free will...

But that only applies for an omniscient god. Remove god's omniscience and free will is possible. It becomes even possible for god to change his mind then, because with omniscience, he never could.

Finally, have you now renounced atheism? In order to justify your position, you must assume the existence of God. What use is it to argue a position that you don't believe?

Good lord (no pun intended), you really don't read!

Even if I were a theist, I'd have a hard time believing God answers any prayers. What's willed is willed, and the omnipotent, omniscient creator of everything is both incapable of changing its mind, and also has no interest in playing favorites with its beings.

It's a hypothetical position. Why does anyone argue a hypothetical position? Just because. People do it all the time.

My atheism, as I have said before, is what most mislabel agnosticism. I don't actively believe in a god, but I don't actively disbelieve in one. I certainly don't believe in your god, the god of the Bible. But if we're talking some other more realistic permutation, I'm open to the possibility. But so far, I've seen no proof.

[Urban Ranger]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
It does seem that way, don't it? Note how I mentioned it would negate free will...

Exactly.

I argued the same thing repeatedly before, but somehow, Christians just refused to accept this.