It is logically impossible for an omniscient, omnipotent god to ....

[FortunaMaximus]

Agreed. And like I said, it's going to take much more than temporal semantics to offer a disprovable thesis.

Causality is violated in the natural Universe.

[thylacine]

Some of you got n^th-levelled on the poll. It was on the Steven Colbert level, not the Bill O'Reilly level.

... except the first two options. They were just on the level. And they give an interesting result. Knowing merely that a person is an atheist statistically tells you very little about where they stand on questions of free will. Makes it hard to legitimately stereotype and pidgeonhole atheists.

[FortunaMaximus]

Uh, okay...

Except... you may have chosen the wrong sample set to nth level here. [img]/images/graemlins/smirk.gif[/img] This ain't exactly BBV.

[madnak]

[ QUOTE ]
Some of you got n^th-levelled on the poll.

[/ QUOTE ]

That's happening to me a lot recently.

[vhawk01]

[ QUOTE ]
Yeah, i agree that my definitions make free will and determinism incompatible tautologically. I don't really see a problem with that, though. Theism and Atheism are tautologically incompatible, but they are both words that convey meaning.

At any rate, when people argue that they are incompatible, it's something to bear in mind about where they are coming from, if you don't already. I think the definition these people use would be similar to mine...something along the lines of 'the ability to make choices not dictated by the physical laws of the universe ' (That's not rigorous...just throwing it out there).

[/ QUOTE ]

Yes, those words are still meaningful, but any discussion of whether you can be an atheist and a theist at the same time isnt. Since thats not an argument anyone cares about, you get away with your definitions. In the case free will, you aren't objectionless.