Obtaurian

Here's the definition from an accredited dictionary (Merriam-Webster.) 1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight 2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge http://mw1.m-w.com/dictionary/omniscient So I guess your point is invalid.

Yes. He limits himself. But he still has the power. Listen. He knows the paths we can take, and he knows what will happen when we take them. He limits himself on this knowledge alone. If he wanted to, he could control us and make everything set in stone. But he let's us do as we please. He has the power to do so, he just doesn't use it on us. We obviously have different ideas of the meaning of omniscience, and this is getting repetitive. [/hide] The future is the future! If God knows what the future holds, he knows what might, can, could, almost, maybe, will happen, etc! So can God see the future or not? If not, he is not God. It's getting repetitive because you are unaware of this neat little thing called LOGIC. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_from_free_will#Criticisms Please read this. What I am saying about God is considered omniscience. here's a passage from the article- I go with choice #1. God chooses to know what he wants to know. He knows the future, and all possible happenings, but in a way that gives us free will. Is it that hard to understand? The definition of omniscient does not change when we want it to benefit our argument. It's not hard to understand at all, actually. You're just wrong. So is God all knowing?

Yes. He limits himself. But he still has the power. Listen. He knows the paths we can take, and he knows what will happen when we take them. He limits himself on this knowledge alone. If he wanted to, he could control us and make everything set in stone. But he let's us do as we please. He has the power to do so, he just doesn't use it on us. We obviously have different ideas of the meaning of omniscience, and this is getting repetitive. The future is the future! If God knows what the future holds, he knows what might, can, could, almost, maybe, will happen, etc! So can God see the future or not? If not, he is not God. It's getting repetitive because you are unaware of this neat little thing called LOGIC.

So are you claiming that God did not create the human brain? You're not a Christian, are you? That would certainly explain your lack of knowledge on the subject of Christianity and its God.

If God is omniscient, he knows what the future holds. If God does not know what the future holds, he is not omniscient. If God is not omniscient, he is not God. If he knows what the future holds, he knows what path we take, limiting our options to one path - the one he knows we'll take. That is not free will. We do not have free will unless God is not omniscient, and thus, not God.

If God knows all possible paths, but does not know what happens afterwords, he is not omniscient. If he does know what happens afterwords, he knows what decision we were going to make, thus taking away the thousands of possibilities and leaving one - the one he knew we'd make. IF GOD DOES NOT KNOW EVERYTHING, HE IS NOT GOD. Anyway, this is a pointless argument. Clearly, fundamental logic is lost here. Take a critical thinking class and get back to me.

I never said he knows the future, I said he knows the possibilities. The future is to me unknowable, simply by the fact that it does not exist until it takes place, at which point it is no longer the future. He may know how likely it is we will pick each individual possibility, but he cannot "know" which one we will pick because it is not decided until we pick it. (And again with the omnipotent. Omnipotent is all-powerful, not all-knowing. Look it up.) I also never said that anything would happen outside the realm of those possibilities. Just because the possibilities are limited, does not mean everything is predetermined. The Christian God is also omniscient. He cannot be omniscient (and thus, not a Christian God) if he does not know the future. It's very simple. The definition of omniscient is knowing everything infinitely. God knows an infinite amount of futures. But he doesn't control it. Omniscience has nothing to do with control. Simply knowing something that can occur doesn't give you control over something unless you act upon it. So if we eat a cheesecake, he knows everything that could possibly happen to us because of it. But he doesn't make us eat the cheesecake, but he knows what can and will occur if we do. Yes he could control us if he wanted, but he doesn't. Why? He wants us to have freedom of choice. Oh I get it. You're saying that God, who is omniscient and infinitely knowing, does not know what happens after we eat the cheesecake. Wait, what?

I never said he knows the future, I said he knows the possibilities. The future is to me unknowable, simply by the fact that it does not exist until it takes place, at which point it is no longer the future. He may know how likely it is we will pick each individual possibility, but he cannot "know" which one we will pick because it is not decided until we pick it. (And again with the omnipotent. Omnipotent is all-powerful, not all-knowing. Look it up.) I also never said that anything would happen outside the realm of those possibilities. Just because the possibilities are limited, does not mean everything is predetermined. The Christian God is also omniscient. He cannot be omniscient (and thus, not a Christian God) if he does not know the future.

Lots of problems with that. If freewill does exist, God can be omniscient(omnipotent is all-powerful) by seeing all possibilities because the future does not exist until it actually happens, and it is therefore not knowable. If we have not freewill, then it doesn't really matter either way, now does it? Besides that, why does a god have to be all-knowing(or all-powerful as the case may be)? The Christian God is omnipotent, which by definition means that he should be able to see the future and all possibilities, which still implies that nothing can happen which wasn't one of the possibilities. If an omnipotent god does not knowing something, he is not omnipotent. I believe that God sees all the different possibilities of the future, based on our choices of course (Thats a helluva lotta scenarios for the future), and that's how he knows the future. We still have that choice though. As I've stated above, being given a large number of predetermined paths does not change the fact that the path we choose is predetermined.

He doesn't see the future, he knows every future that is possible. You choose the path to take. If all paths are set in stone, there is no free will.

Lots of problems with that. If freewill does exist, God can be omniscient(omnipotent is all-powerful) by seeing all possibilities because the future does not exist until it actually happens, and it is therefore not knowable. If we have not freewill, then it doesn't really matter either way, now does it? Besides that, why does a god have to be all-knowing(or all-powerful as the case may be)? The Christian God is omnipotent, which by definition means that he should be able to see the future and all possibilities, which still implies that nothing can happen which wasn't one of the possibilities. If an omnipotent god does not knowing something, he is not omnipotent.

If God is omnipotent and can see the future, then the future is predetermined and thus freewill does not exist. No matter what you think you've chosen to do, it was already set in stone. If we have true freewill, then God cannot see the future, and thus he is not omnipotent, which makes me wonder if he's even really a god.

Yeah it was backwards, but with the profit from Green Dragons you could get 83 slayer faster then player A did. Also who says player B has to train slayer? Slightly faster, but Player A will be able to make a lot more money during the time it takes Player B to catch up. Player B certainly does not have to train Slayer, but he then lives with being inferior to Player A, and that brings me back to my original point: If you don't care about total levels, don't train Slayer. Simple.

That's a question you need to ask yourself. If you decide that you care about total levels; train slayer. But in a debate you must look at the factual evidence. Okay, let's do that: Two players have completely equal stats except for Slayer. Player A has 83 Slayer and is killing green dragons for cash. Player B has 1 Slayer and is killing green dragons for cash. I dunno man, it's a tough one. Hmm, I'm thinking they'll be making exactly the same profit. -.- And I'm thinking... and this is just a guess... that Player A is the better player. But what if player A has been killing them for all the time player B has been training slayer. I think you mean the other way around, but anyway, that means that Player B still has an inferior Slayer level, and eventually he's going to need to train it. When he does, he'll start out with more money than Player A had when initially training Slayer, but that leaves Player A to do whatever he wants while Player B catches up. This includes training more Slayer, doing GWD, or whatever.

Can I get a source, please? http://www.biblelife.org/election.htm Just go to Man's choice to good and evil, and read that. I read it three times and it does not seem to imply that man has freewill. The last sentence of the first verse is the closest that it comes, but I'm just not seeing it.

Can I get a source, please?

That's a question you need to ask yourself. If you decide that you care about total levels; train slayer. But in a debate you must look at the factual evidence. Okay, let's do that: Two players have completely equal stats except for Slayer. Player A has 83 Slayer and is killing green dragons for cash. Player B has 1 Slayer and is killing green dragons for cash. I dunno man, it's a tough one. Hmm, I'm thinking they'll be making exactly the same profit. -.- And I'm thinking... and this is just a guess... that Player A is the better player.

Why? He hasn't done anything what's hard or takes a long time apart from maxing every skill, the Prayer Xp is easy and doesn't even cost much at all really now that there are Gilded Alters and everything, it takes the "amazing" out of having high prayer and you have Jagex to thank for that. I've never heard of zafot, that alone should mean he can't be THE most famous. And 3hit, you talking about zarfot or zezima, because im very sure zeima had 99 pray long before altars. I'm talking about Zarfot. Zezima had it before Alters but he used Ecto, no one got 99 Prayer without Ecto, that's how hard Prayer was. He maxed out faster than N0valyfe and went from 30m to 200m Prayer experience in a bit under two months or so. I stated that he was my favorite player, not the most famous, though he is very famous at this point. I lol'd.

HEY BRO, GOT THE THING?

Oh mah gawd, I lol'd.

That's a question you need to ask yourself. If you decide that you care about total levels; train slayer. But in a debate you must look at the factual evidence. Okay, let's do that: Two players have completely equal stats except for Slayer. Player A has 83 Slayer and is killing green dragons for cash. Player B has 1 Slayer and is killing green dragons for cash. I dunno man, it's a tough one.

OR, the Rate This forum is there so someone can post their stats/achievements, and a bunch of other people can post their OPINIONS. KEYWORD: OPINIONS. If it's in game, the ignore list works wonderfully. If you post your achievements in Rate This, you give permission to the Tipit community to share its opinion. If you want a slew of 10/10s, PM your friends and have a party, but don't post in Rate This.

Okay, serious answer: Zezima is one of the best players to ever grace this game. My favorite player is Zarfot, who is THE BEST.

150th quest is more than likely the end of the Goblin quests. Tis a great storyline, so I hope I'm right. Very good read.

I'm going to have to agree with Omali.