Thanks =) I like your posts too.

For the most part, I agree. I just want to get a little further out and talk about the 'false by meaning' things you bring up. In our world's rules, I completely agree. I'm going to get a little philosophical here but yes, in our perspective, a square circle cannot exist since the meanings of the terms directly clash with each other. But maybe we don't see the full picture. We perceive 3-4 dimensions (3d time to keep it simple) and yet scientists theorize there may be as many as 11 dimensions. Is it not possible within those other 7 dimensions some sort of 'loophole' that could make a square circle exist logically? We only perceive 3-4 dimensions, so we only see 3-4 dimensions of an object, we don't necessarily see the whole picture. 

Now this idea won't necessarily apply well to the square-circle idea directly, since even with other perceived dimensions, maybe it wouldn't change. Just like how a line is still a line even though we perceive more dimensions than it requires for us to perceive (and I won't even get into cubes and spheres). However, I meant to bring up the idea to apply as a whole to any kind of terms conflict in the manner of the square circle. The square circle is such a good example that I had to use it =)

I know this is the basis for refuting some God theories as well, mostly in terms of the traits given. I've used it myself when people try to say God is omnipotent and omniscient and yet those same people believe in free will. I posit that omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. But it may all lie in semantics and the definitions assigned. To me, free will is more than simply the ability to choose your own course of action, but to explain fully requires adding in omniscience. All knowing. A very powerful word, a being who is omniscient is ALL knowing. I cannot stress that all part enough. If God is all knowing, he knows all of the past, all of the present, and all of the possible futures. Just the mere fact that he knows any future you could possibly act on disproves the concept of free will for me.

I won't leave it at that. Most people think free will just means there is no set future, but I don't believe that to be the case. An omniscient and omnipotent creature would be able to foresee every infinte possibility. Just his or her or its mere knowing and understanding of every possible choice would rule out free will possibility existing. At that point, your not choosing your own path, your still walking along a predetermined path. Rather, one of infinite possible predetermined path, but the true choice is beyond you.

Lastly and most importantly, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, not only does God then see every possibilty, but God will still know EXACTLY which path will be taken. That's still part of the all knowing. If God doesn't know which path will be taken, then God is not all knowing and none of this really matters. It took a while to lead up to this most important part, but I had to lead up to it. Omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. Unless, of course, in those other 7 unknown dimensions, there may lie a loophole. So I'm open to the possibility of such a thing, but at this time, just as I accept there cannot be a square circle, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. 

I went a little far out there but I brought it back in the end =P

Religion is an ideology, it can be discussed, unlike race. What's there to say about skin colour? Not much. Ideology is a choice, that can be right or wrong, so it is normal it sparks debate, as we have seen in this thread. Religion is not untouchable, of course it's not the same arguing against religion and arguing against race. And religious people bash atheists all the time, too.

Personally, I don't participate in these debates usually, because there is no end. I don't care if someone is religious of not unless it affects me directly somehow. I respect it and expect respect, that's it.

Thanks =) I like your posts too.

For the most part, I agree. I just want to get a little further out and talk about the 'false by meaning' things you bring up. In our world's rules, I completely agree. I'm going to get a little philosophical here but yes, in our perspective, a square circle cannot exist since the meanings of the terms directly clash with each other. But maybe we don't see the full picture. We perceive 3-4 dimensions (3d time to keep it simple) and yet scientists theorize there may be as many as 11 dimensions. Is it not possible within those other 7 dimensions some sort of 'loophole' that could make a square circle exist logically? We only perceive 3-4 dimensions, so we only see 3-4 dimensions of an object, we don't necessarily see the whole picture. 

Now this idea won't necessarily apply well to the square-circle idea directly, since even with other perceived dimensions, maybe it wouldn't change. Just like how a line is still a line even though we perceive more dimensions than it requires for us to perceive (and I won't even get into cubes and spheres). However, I meant to bring up the idea to apply as a whole to any kind of terms conflict in the manner of the square circle. The square circle is such a good example that I had to use it =)

I know this is the basis for refuting some God theories as well, mostly in terms of the traits given. I've used it myself when people try to say God is omnipotent and omniscient and yet those same people believe in free will. I posit that omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. But it may all lie in semantics and the definitions assigned. To me, free will is more than simply the ability to choose your own course of action, but to explain fully requires adding in omniscience. All knowing. A very powerful word, a being who is omniscient is ALL knowing. I cannot stress that all part enough. If God is all knowing, he knows all of the past, all of the present, and all of the possible futures. Just the mere fact that he knows any future you could possibly act on disproves the concept of free will for me.

I won't leave it at that. Most people think free will just means there is no set future, but I don't believe that to be the case. An omniscient and omnipotent creature would be able to foresee every infinte possibility. Just his or her or its mere knowing and understanding of every possible choice would rule out free will possibility existing. At that point, your not choosing your own path, your still walking along a predetermined path. Rather, one of infinite possible predetermined path, but the true choice is beyond you.

Lastly and most importantly, if God is omniscient and omnipotent, not only does God then see every possibilty, but God will still know EXACTLY which path will be taken. That's still part of the all knowing. If God doesn't know which path will be taken, then God is not all knowing and none of this really matters. It took a while to lead up to this most important part, but I had to lead up to it. Omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. Unless, of course, in those other 7 unknown dimensions, there may lie a loophole. So I'm open to the possibility of such a thing, but at this time, just as I accept there cannot be a square circle, omniscience and free will cannot co-exist. 

I went a little far out there but I brought it back in the end =P

There really is no end to these debates, and that's why I've avoided them for a few years, but I just want to mention one thing. Your first paragraph is mostly correct. If you talk about Muslims or Christians, yes, it is true. But this doesn't apply to Orthodox Jews (and maybe non-Orthodox Jews too, I'm not sure). Of the pracitcing Orthodox Jews I know, religion and race are the same thing. Maybe better put, when an Orthodox Jew says he/she is Jewish, he/she is not only commenting on religion, but also race. If you ask them about what they believe, you will hear a term "The Jewish people" often. It's not a reference to their religion but their ancestry and heritage. So while other religions are separate from race, not all of them are. Orthodox Judaism is the only one I know enough about to comment on though, and even then, I know very little.

Not that wikipedia is the best source, but I'll link the first couple sentences.

The Jews, also known as the Jewish people, are a nation and ethnoreligious group originating in the Israelites or Hebrews of the Ancient Near East. The Jewish ethnicity, nationality, and religion are strongly interrelated, as Judaism is the traditional faith of the Jewish nation.[6][7][8] Converts to Judaism, whose status as Jews within the Jewish ethnos is equal to those born into it, have been absorbed into the Jewish people throughout the millennia.

Even though the Jewish people are very tolerant and accepting of converts, they still aren't truly considered the same. Ethnoreligious group is the proper term though. I went on about this longer than I thought I would, but I thought it was worth noting.

Again, define what definbes "correct, good, and righteous morals." Also, if you believe in universal morals, why are the christian morals the righteous ones? Why not the Aztec ones where you have to sacrifice yourself to a god to go to a form of heaven?

I am fully well aware of the difference between the two, you just don't realize that your logic is kind of laughable. Absolutely ANY argument you give me against fairy tales, I can use against religion. Which is why religion is just a collectino of fairy tales. It just happens to be a subset of fairy tales in which people actually believe.

One thing to consider is that if God created this Universe, he did so with his infinite knowledge and power, but what he created is not part of him, it's not under his control. The universe is moving freely and without the intervention of God past his creation. He is omniscient in the sense that his creation was made with infinite knowledge, but he doesn't know what will happen with free thinking beings, that's the trick there. He may know all possible futures, but he doesn't know which one will be happening, because it's outside of his control.

Just like we say that God is omnipotent, but still God cannot contradict himself. God cannot make one thing to be and not be at the same time, God cannot create another God, God cannot destroy himself. Hope this made sense.

This is one of the more ridiculous things I've read in one of these kinds of discussions. Let's set this up simply (though it is probably falsely dichotomous). If there is no God, there cannot be evidence for either side of the debate. It would be impossible to find evidence supporting or disproving the existence of God. You cannot prove or disprove something that does not exist.Are you saying that when something doesnt exist, you cant prove that it doesnt exist?

However, if there is a God, then there could be evidence to prove the existence of God, but there will still be no evidence to disprove God's existence. In both cases, you cannot have evidence to disprove something, it is logically impossible, therefore the burden of proof falls on believers, not atheists.Actually, existing God would NEVER give evidence to people about his existance.He would never allow humans to find evidence of him (considering thats actually possible) That would chnage the very foundation of life on Earth. That would ruin freedom of choice and will God gave to people and lots of other very important elements of human life. It would also destory the concept of faith  and  like I said, it all comes down to faith.

Now again, this is assuming a dichotomy when that's not really the case, so I think it's better to say whether or not there is a higher power or not. Since God and other possible celestial beings can be classified as a higher power, that wording probably works better. 

Lastly, it can be difficult to discern what is actually evidence and what is merely just a 'red herring' in the end. Maybe there is some true evidence in the Bible or Koran or other religious work that truly points to a higher power but we will probably never know (in life that is).

That's only from your perspective. Your basing that on a subjective belief of what is right and wrong. I took a few philosophy classes in college, one of them was about this topic exactly. Is there an objective set of morals? A universal true set of right and wrong? That class was one of the best classes I've ever taken, but in the end, it amounted to one thing. We can never know. There is NO possible way to truly know. We can debate and theorize and think and discuss all we want. But in the end, there is really no way to know for sure either way.

You think it's wrong to kill and steal and lie and cheat. You believe in the 7 deadly sins as sinful. But morals are not that simple. Maybe other cultures/religions/species (talking about possible aliens here since we're talking about universal morals) don't have a problem with murder.  Most of us do, but who's to say we are right? You are just assuming we are right, but in fact we could be wrong. Or maybe there are no morals and what we believe in as right and wrong is merely a higher human powers' attempts to control the masses.

That's pretty much the entire meaning behind Assassin's Creed's creed of "Nothing is true, everything is permitted". Who's to say your right and that idea is wrong? You can assume and believe all you want, but there is no answer to be found, and if you think you've found the answer, you haven't. Now maybe like a multiple choice quiz, you could get lucky and stumble on the right answer, but you won't know until you get your test scores back. What you're trying to argue is that you guess on your multiple choice test, and you know you got it all correct. Maybe you did, maybe you didn't, but the key point is that you do now know, and you will not know until later, if ever (death).

So he's almost omniscient and almost omnipotent is what you really mean. You can't say he is omniscient and then say he doesn't know something. Or that he is omnipotent and cannot do something.

Omni means all. Omni doesn't mean almost everything or almost all. If God is omnipotent, he can create another God or destroy himself if he wants. He can make something be and not be at the same time, even if our limited minds cannot understand that. But you cannot ascribe a trait such as omnipotent and then change the meaning. If God doesn't know everything, including what will be happening, then he is not omniscient. If God cannot do something, even if that means contradicting himself, then he is not omnipotent. You can't have it both ways. Omnipotent and omniscient are very strong wording with very exact meanings.

With extra-dimensions, there is always the possibility that we do not have the whole picture, but you don't really need extra-dimensions to recognize this point. There was a great example I was reading in a book addressing the problem of evil that emphasized this point. Imaginge you are standing outside an empty garage (completely empty- just walls, floor, air molecules- hopefully you get the point). Someone asks you whether there is a dog in the garage. You would feel justified in saying there is no dog. The person then asks you whether there are any fleas in the garage. In reponse to this question, you don't feel justified in saying there are no fleas because your frame of observation is not exact enough to make the claim.

You get the same results with extra-dimensions, especially given that some dimensions are posited to be so small that they are beyond human observation. There might be some celestial unicorn galloping around in the 11th dimension, but we just can't see it (unlikely, but possible). I don't know if these examples directly apply to a square-circle though, particularly because the dimension would actually need to change the meaning of the terms. Point being, a square-circle is a logical contradiction.

Now, onto foreknowledge and free will. The problem gets a lot of discussion. To play devil's advocate, there are a number of responses. First, there is a difference between saying someone knows that x will happen, and saying that someone causes x to happen. God could know that some human will make a choice, but this does not mean he is causing the person to make this choice. God's omniscience allows him to know what action I will take, but the actual action of making that choice is still made by me. However, this argument is not conducive with what we generally think of as free-will because there really are no other options. As you noted, we cannot go against God's knowledge without sacrificing his omnisicience.

The other response is that God does not know our future actions, but this does not eliminate God's omniscience because there is no knowledge of the future, at least where free will is concerned. Knowledge requires that there is a way to test whether the claim corresponds with reality, but there is no reality to test the claim because the claim depends on some as-yet unobserved state of the universe. This response makes more sense to me although it would require that God's timelessness (eternal viewpoint) be denied.