However, that doesn't mean i will necessarily do X

Then god isnt omnipotent in that scenario

gg

sperg mode

Where am i wrong

This is the meme that ruined christianity for me

its complete shit

Mate you dont understand propositional logic

if an invalid syllogism convinced you against Christianity, u got a lot reading to do

Is this the argument of theological fatalism, yes or no

The thing about the argument is that it is FORMALLY INVALID

and because its formally invalid, the INFERENCE RULE IS INVALID

and since the inference rule is invalid, THE CONCLUSION IS INVALID

this is how propositional logic 101 works

How do you have free will if the being that made you made the physical being and environment you are in and he knows all outcomes of it already? A god that is omnipotent already knows where all threads end by default. He is to blame and credit for everything , an omnipotent god is actually unable to give freewill since HE IS or HE MADE all things.

However. He could , if he is omnipotent, make a being he knows all about but make that being think it has free will.

easy. why wouldn't you

bruh

why would His knowledge of your actions means that He dictated them?

>ignores my response

whatever, sperg

this dude somehow thinks that formal invalidity somehow doesnt mean the argument isn't sound

<:absoluteretardation:591182455885660178>

chill out

I need to scroll and read.

adhom gay

>adhom

man its so annoying when peolpe throw around logical fallacies without knowing what they mean

an adhom is resorting to insults instead of acknowledging arguments

I acknowledged your argument

Keep it civil before I intervene.

One side being irrational or insulting does not give you the right to do the same.

Thats not what ive heard

What's not what you heard?

The argument is essentially theological fatalism, its just that your conclusion is concerning the implication being that god cannot therefore be omnipotent

And all im saying is, that the conclusion is untrue because the argument is untrue, and the argument is untrue because its formally invalid

Formal invalidity entails the absence of an adequate inference rule, and an inference rule in propositional logic is THE thing which connects the conclusion and the premises

and since the conclusion and the premises arent connected, the argument is generally useless

smug

but not on point

what

God knows all, yes
God makes all, yes
How can this being possibly make something that he didnt actively design, by virtue of knowing all?
He cannot.