If you posit the type of God who realizes the limitations of the beings he has created, which would mean, for one thing, that some human beings, through no fault of their own, are incapable of believing in him, and doesn't condemn them for being how he, in fact, created them, then I have no argument against that.
We hate to seem like we don’t trust every nut with a story, but there’s evidence we can point to, and dance while shouting taunting phrases.
Here are some helpful definitions. The biggest problem with "free will" is that there is no real starting point for understanding it since at minimum, it's contracausal. Libertarians argue that it must be the case in order to maintain moral culpability and essentially, to avoid nihilism. So they're completely working backwards.
I'm glad you took it well, I did mean it to be funny. I was referring to the 'everything is an illusion' idea.
If you posit the type of God who realizes the limitations of the beings he has created, which would mean, for one thing, that some human beings, through no fault of their own, are incapable of believing in him, and doesn't condemn them for being how he, in fact, created them, then I have no argument against that.
That is indeed the God in which I believe. I don't believe, for example, that God's default setting is 'throw them all into hell, regardless of whether or not they even know I exist'.
Lazy research debunked: bcspace x 4 | maklelan x 3 | Coggins7 x 5 (by Mr. Coffee x5) | grampa75 x 1 | whyme x 2 | rcrocket x 2 | Kerry Shirts x 1 | Enuma Elish x 1|