I am familiar with theological fatalism mate

Its formally invalid, it doesnt follow that you will necessarily do X, the only thing that follows is that you will do x, but you COULD do y, as its not necessary for you to do X

ye but

you cant rebutt it

i just did lol

Its invalid syllogism

Yeah but god already knows what will happen in all timelines, right?

Or... is HE NOT OMNIPOTENT?

Omniscient etc

God knows all yes, however, just because god knows you will do X, does not mean you will necessarily do X, but that you WILL do x

the difference here

is

That there is no "necessity" for you to do X

As you could still do y

since its not necessary to do X

Yes but. When he made you he knew everything you would do before you did it. Yes?

I already addressed that

God knows i will do X

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