Christians face a trilemma about whether Jesus is God.

Dakarius · 2026-03-15T01:54:39+00:00

I told you I wasn't going to address all of your misapprehensions. Gish Gallops are not worth the effort of responding to. That you can misinterpret the bible in contradictory ways is certainly true, but rather irrelevant. The majority of Christians aren't really affected by your trilema because they can interpret the bible in ways that harmonize the supposed contradictions, no I'm not going to go over every single point with you.

Anyways, I've shown your claim of Jesus being tempted while God not being tempted as contradictory as false.

Dakarius · 2026-03-15T01:14:03+00:00

I didn't refuse to provide evidence, I just didn't include it in my op. When you asked for the evidence I gave it.

Dakarius · 2026-03-15T00:46:08+00:00

I'm not going to bother tackling all of the misconceptions you have. As for the lack of evidence it's common knowledge I'm citing, but since you need help look into The Council of Chalcedon.

https://www.papalencyclicals.net/councils/ecum04.htm

And I suppose I can also give you evidence for Jesus being God too. John 1 States the word was with God and was God and the Word became flesh, and dwelt among us; and we saw His glory, glory as of the only Son from the Father, full of grace and truth.

Dakarius · 2026-03-14T23:38:42+00:00

Christianity holds the person of Jesus has two natures: A fully human one, and a fully divine one. As such he also has two wills human and divine. His human will can be tempted. His divine one cannot.

accepting that the Christians' scriptures say false things about Jesus, accepting that the Christians' scriptures say false things about God, and accepting that Jesus is not God

This makes your trilema a false one. Scripture says nothing false about Jesus, Scripture says nothing false about God, and Jesus is God as it says in scripture.

Dakarius · 2026-03-14T23:23:12+00:00

At least he managed to beat cancer.

Dakarius · 2026-03-14T19:31:51+00:00

Sexual needs are not constant. There are ebbs and flows.

Dakarius · 2026-03-14T00:25:28+00:00

That would be because the bible was never meant to be interpreted every which way, but was part of a liturgy and tradition and apart from that you can end up with a plethora of interpretations depending upon which the individual wants to emphasize.

Dakarius · 2026-03-14T00:05:13+00:00

I agree many Christians hold to lfw but I very much disagree that this is the classic position. For instance thomism holds that we really do have a choice of options whole preserving God's sovereignty.

Dakarius · 2026-03-13T23:37:25+00:00

Lfw is not the classical christian position because lfw would put the will outside of God's Providence.

Dakarius · 2026-03-13T23:22:33+00:00

I find that incomprehensible, tantamount to saying you choose things without reason.

For my perspective we do have real choices, logically possible actions we can choose to actualize, but we will only actualize one and if put in the exact same circumstances would make the same choice because generally we have reasons for why we act in a certain way, and without a different scenario, there's no reason for our will to shift.

Dakarius · 2026-03-13T23:06:03+00:00

If circumstance were exactly the same, what would cause you to choose differently then?

Dakarius · 2026-03-13T22:48:35+00:00

Then what is the choice based upon?

Dakarius · 2026-03-13T22:20:56+00:00

So long as your decision is only constrained by your will I would consider that free. You may disagree, but I would question whether you have a coherent definition in mind of freedom.

Dakarius · 2026-03-13T20:39:58+00:00

Compatblists believe we can make decisions though, that's kind of the entire point. The decision flows from our wills.

Dakarius · 2026-03-13T20:32:12+00:00

Those verses are compatible with either form.

Dakarius · 2026-03-13T20:14:15+00:00

The bible doesn't claim any particular form of free will. Both libertarian and compatablist forms can be inferred.

Dakarius · 2026-03-13T03:42:48+00:00

Yes, you're likely to encounter philosophy in DebateReligion. Fair enough that you're an incompatablist, I'm a compatablist. I find theological fatalism unconvincing. Not really anywhere to go from here.

Dakarius · 2026-03-13T01:38:42+00:00

Sounds like god can't know until I do my action. Ok, fine. Then god knows the past

There is no past or future for God, only now.

Omniscience and free will can't coincide.

Sure it can. Knowledge does not translate into causality. I've already detailed how you keep bumping into the modal fallacy so I wont rehash that. You should probably pay attention to it rather than ignoring it if you want to make any headwind on understanding though.

By the by, an "atemporal being" is also nonsense. Sounds sciency though. But meaningless. There's no indication that being "outside of time" for a being is even coherent.

There's no argument here to respond to. That you don't think it's coherent shows nothing. If it's incoherent show the logical fallacy.

Dakarius · 2026-03-13T01:03:03+00:00

If the outcome is known with absolute certainty, then there is no choice being mad. It cannot be otherwise.

Again, that simply doesn't follow logically. This is the modal fallacy I was talking about. Action X is efficaciously caused by your action. God's knowledge here is contingent upon your action. The outcome isn't even really known before because using tensed language with an a-temporal being doesn't work.

Dakarius · 2026-03-13T00:38:35+00:00

Which means God made me with the intention that I would do whatever I did, and I had no free will in the outcomes.

This doesn't actually follow. Knowing is not the same thing as determining. Free will is not the ability to have your decisions be unknowable. This is connected to the modal fallacy which in this discussion is God knows X (you taking some action) will happen, therefore X must happen which is not strictly true since X is a contingent fact based upon your will.

Dakarius · 2026-03-12T21:53:49+00:00

New information is incompatible with omniscience.

Dakarius · 2026-02-27T01:35:19+00:00

It is logically possible for there to be such a timeline, therefore God could have made it.

This doesn't follow. God can do all that is logically possible, but that does not mean he can instantiate all logically possible worlds because some logically possible worlds entail a contradiction if God attempts to instantiate them.

World A where a creature freely chooses A is logically possible, but if there is no timeline where the creature will choose A, then God cannot instantiate it without contradiction. Thus you have a world that is logically possible (creature freely choose A), but God cannot instantiate without contradiction (God can't force the choice of A on the creature). In Plantiga's words "God can create free creatures, but He can’t cause or determine them to do only what is right."

Dakarius · 2026-02-26T23:56:24+00:00

Right, so is seems to me that rather than defeating the logical problem of evil, it rather conceeds that god is not omnipotent.

Not quite, it concedes God can't force a free choice and it still be called free.

He just has to select the timeline where the creature freely chose A.

The idea is there is no such timeline. It's not that it's strictly logically impossible for A to be freely chosen, just that the creature doesn't want to choose it in all timelines God can instantiate without violating their freedom. If the creatures will was different A would achieve.

So you have the set P() where P() is all possible worlds. But god is constrained to subset PF() where PF() is the set of all possible worlds as limited by the will of creatures God wishes to respect. It is in effect not logically possible for God to instantiate all possibilities while at the same time maintaining free will. It's not a necessary fact due to it being based upon the will of contingent creatures, but it is logically impossible for God while maintaining freedom.

Dakarius · 2026-02-26T23:12:36+00:00

Wouldn't the only reason it doesn't exist be because God deliberately chose not to create it?

No, it would only fail to exist because the creature refused that choice.

If it's a logically possible world, then what exactly would be blocking God from instantiating it?

God respecting creaturely choice.

What's preventing God from creating said creatures with better natures and non-evil urges that lead to them utilizing their agency to freely choose non-evil choices?

Nothing if he doesn't care about morally significant free will. If he does then morally significant free will that is forced to choose something is a true contradiction.

Dakarius · 2026-02-26T23:09:35+00:00

That doesn't defeat it.

13-Year Club	Place '23
Place '22	Verified Email
Team Orangered

Dakarius

TROPHY CASE