Christopher Chambers (He/Him/His)

@darwintojesus Again, not my point. I said some Christians believe God is temporal. An example: William Lane Craig: “…my peculiar view God enters into time at the moment of creation. He is timeless sans creation and temporal since the moment of creation.” biola.edu/blogs/good-boo…

@cpchambe OK, so no Christians believe that God is in time with us at the present just like I said, yes?

Alright I don't know what Stefan is doing but this isn't even a valid syllogism. I'll correct it first, then respond. 1. If God knows the future infallibly, then God cannot change the future. 2. If God cannot change the future, then God is not all powerful. 3. God knows the future infallibly. 4. Therefore, God is not all powerful. Okay so this syllogism is now valid and if all the premises are true, the argument is deductively true, that means the conclusion will necessarily follow. So are all the premises true? To begin, there are a number of problems with premise one. Firstly, atheists always seem to have this notion that God is in the present with us and He has the ability to see His future and ours. This is really odd because we always say God is outside of space and time. God isn't temporal like humans are, He transcends time. All moments in time are present to God. This means that God isn't sitting with us in 2026 knowing what's in 2027 and He can't do anything about it because it's known infallibly. The idea of God changing the future makes no sense because there is no such thing as "the future" to God. Imagine saying "God is insecure, and if He was all powerful He could stop being insecure." The problem is that God isn't insecure, humans are. Insecurity isn't a thing God deals with, so He can't stop doing it. In the same way, God isn't IN the present, so to God there is no such thing as the future, so of course God can't change it. The second problem for premise one is the idea that knowledge is causal, that knowing things causes them to happen. Why did I buy chocolate at the store? Because God knew I would. Why am I writing this response? Because God knew I would. All actions are caused by God's foreknowledge and can't be otherwise. This is obviously absurd. Knowledge is never causal, it's reflective. Atheists get this totally backwards. I know why the Titanic sunk because it sunk, my knowledge of the event didn't cause it to happen the way it did. The way it happened CAUSED my knowledge to be the way it is. If the Titanic had sunk for a different reason, my knowledge would reflect that other reason. Knowledge is inert, passive, and reflective. It's never causal. We don't do things because God knows what we'll do, we do things and God (being outside of time) knows what we have done because we have done them. This means that the event, the choice, determines the knowledge, not the other way around. And from this, knowledge doesn't constrain or eliminate choices. This means God can be all knowing and freely make choices consistent with His nature, and His knowledge is simply a reflection of the choices He freely makes. So premise one is totally unsound. Because of these reasons premise two is also totally unsound as well. This argument fails. Stefan also mentioned that humans can't have free will if God is omniscient, I've written an entire article debunking that, I'll put a link to it in the comments.

@darwintojesus Richard Swinburne also argues God exists through time rather than outside it entirely, because actions like responding, deciding, and interacting seem inherently sequential. Evangelicals Greg Boyd and William Hasker argue God genuinely experiences temporal flow & an open future.

@darwintojesus I didn’t say Xtian say God is “only in the present.” I said many Xtians believe God exists in all moments of time eternally while still experiencing sequence, rather than existing outside time. WLC argues God was timeless sans creation but temporal since creation.

@darwintojesus Xtians try to avoid this by saying, “God is outside time, so there is no future for/to Him.” But this does not address the belief problem. Even if God is timeless, God’s beliefs cannot be wrong, so it still seems impossible for you to choose not-His-belief. Necessarily fixity.

@darwintojesus Correct, knowledge is not obviously causal; but the problem is not causation, it’s whether alternative futures are genuinely possible. If God infallibly knows today that tomorrow you will choose X, then tomorrow you cannot choose not-X, otherwise, God’s belief would’ve been false

@psilynt @Tsar_Martyr P1. If all-powerful/knowing/perfectly-good God exists, we would expect a world w/ no suffering that serves no purpose P2. Many forms of suffering appear purposeless P3. Humans eagerly prevent suffering when we can do so. 6. Therefore, the existence of this type of God is doubtful

@cpchambe @Tsar_Martyr It really boils down to a problem with the word 'god' being so loose as to include literally nothing to literally everything and more. Can only really be atheist in regards to specific gods. Generic, vague and indescribable gods? Nobody rational can have a position on those.

Why do atheists refuse to defend their worldview?

@oliverburdick Or some other imagine afterlife.

If atheists are right, we're all going to the same place when we die. If atheists are wrong, they're going to hell.

@JoelR21759280 @ReasonUnchains @oliverburdick The sources mainly show these leaders endured persecution and death rather than abandon their movement, but it’s not clear they had choice. Refusing imperial religious expectations, public disorder, association w suspect groups, refusal to participate in civic cults were deadly

@JoelR21759280 @ReasonUnchains @oliverburdick The general scholarly consensus is Peter & Paul were probably executed in Rome under Nero. The tradition that Peter was crucified upside down appears later and probably apocryphal. We do not possess Roman court transcripts saying “deny the resurrection or die.”

Jesus's disciples risked their lives to spread the Gospel to the nations. Almost all of them became martyrs in the process. They did not die for a lie.

@Spacepope365 @darwintojesus And DNA doesn’t encode a signal either. So… it’s a claim we would do something for an event that has never happened and then a claim that DNA is just like the thing that has never happened

@cpchambe @darwintojesus The argument isn't that there are no electromagnetic sources in space. It's that none of them have been modulated to encode a signal.

If we find information in a radio signal from space, we treat it as evidence of a mind. But when we find vastly more complex information inside a cell, we’re told intelligence can’t even be considered. Why?

@Tsar_Martyr You: [Empty claim]. Most people aren’t as smart as I am

Most people who believe in evolution don’t understand it

@Tsar_Martyr But you do? Enlighten, please.

@cpchambe You don’t understand evolution

If evolution is true then your brain has no purpose

@The_Pilgrim67 @DeaconStrat @darwintojesus Quantum particles are described by as being in states and having probabilistic momentum and velocity distributions.

@The_Pilgrim67 @DeaconStrat @darwintojesus Schrodinger’s Equation treats time as the parameter relative to which a quantum state evolves. If there is no temporal parameter at all, then the notion of “state evolution” becomes unclear. Cause, change, evolution of states, action imply temporal ordered structure in QM.

God.

@darwintojesus Leikind is a physics professor whose interest is cellphone radiation, convincing it doesn’t cause cancer, and explaining physics of ember walking. WLC is a philosophy and theology professor emeritus, who debates professionally. This 2005 panel was discussing KS science standards.

Atheists will unironically watch this and think this guy is making great points.