God exists - and here's the proof

This thread is similar to the one made by Ankhanu a while ago - Provide evidence of the Supernatural (God et al.)

While he was asking for evidence, I'm providing it.

I'm not going to prove the existence of the God of any particular religion; my God has the following characteristics:

1.He/She was the reason for the Big Bang. Then the scientific explanation as we know it today, took its course.
2.He/She is omnipotent and omnipresent.
3.He/She helps in need (i.e, prayer)

Note that this is merely a thought exercise - I just want to know why the evidence I'm going to provide might or might not prove the existence of a God.

Here goes:

1. God appeared in front of me and my family, and I've videotaped the entire sequence. In the video, he has exhibited his various powers.
2. A patient with an incurable disease was magically cured, somehow. He claims it was by the touch of God. Note that it is impossible for him to be cured by medical science.
3. A large gathering of people (1000+) claim they have seen God. There is no other evidence of any kind, you have to take their word for it.
This is going to sound far-fetched, but..
4. Hundreds of thousands of people around the globe have witnessed cloud formations around the globe, which spell 'God'.

So...will any or all of these stand up to scientific scrutiny?

The first might. The rest will not.
Video is always problematic because of the availability of editing software - as are photographs. The video would have to be under contolled conditions and demonstrate something that could not be explained naturalistically. But that would not be enough. Even if we accepted that the character in the Video could perform miracles, that tells us nothing about whether he caused the Big Bang, is omniscient or onipotent.*

As for the others - people are 'cured' all the time when medical science can do nothing. Some of it is undoubtedly placebo (a very real effect) and some of it spontaneous remission (another way of saying we don't know).

Spotting faces is what humans are really good at, so a load of people seeing God in a cloud is exactly what i would expect if people were asked to look. Seeing the word 'God' spelled is an extension of this. Look into the sky sometime and see if you can find a face, or the word God. With a bit of imagination I'm sure you will....

* These two concepts are mutually contradictory. A nice little ditty illustrates the fundamental contradiction.
Can omniscient God, who
Knows the future, find
The omnipotence to
Change His future mind?

@Indi,
I was actually meaning the design and creation of the cell by Ventnor. I agree that this does not disprove intelligent design, but it does disprove the 'life from life' assertion.
There again, the philosophical disproof is much more elegant Smile

@epi97
As predicted you have now fallen-back on assertion and, in the normal manner for creationists, used special pleading.

I'm going to just skip past the specifics here and point out that epi97 is working entirely with the incredulity from ignorance frame work: I can't think of any other reason, therefore God. It's a giant leap to conclusions with a tinge of mental arrogance (what I mean by arrogance is the supposition that if we, individually, can't think of a better reason, there isn't one... it's often quite false).

The appeal to ignorance to prove God is simply fallacious and leads to what many of the points that were made consist of, a God of the Gaps situation, assertion and tautology. It's not evidence for God, it's assertion and assumption.

To the scientifically literate mind, or the philosophically literate mind, the answer of "I don't know" is acceptable and honest. Inserting some other answer, when we, in fact, do not know, is foolish and dishonest. "What came before the Big Bang" is a "we don't know" question (though there are several hypotheses, but they are only models, we can't, at this time, really say). The same with the origin of life, we have several good hypotheses, but we don't know. Even if the God hypothesis is a valid one, we still can't say with any certainty that it's true... to do so is a leap to conclusions.

It's OK to say "I don't know."

It really doesn't hurt.

It's actually liberating!

I suppose the difference comes from the differences between people with questing, curious minds and those who are complacent taking an answer (no matter its veracity) and sticking with it. Some of us are interested in whether or not our answers hold up to scrutiny and have basis in observable reality. Some of us are comfortable making things up and holding on to the answer no matter what. Is one better than the other? I think so, but, others disagree Wink

When you've freed your mind to the possibility of not having the answers, you've freed your mind to the possibility of FINDING the answers.

There is only one person ignoring the evidence here - you.

You don't 'follow' or 'use' the science for the obvious reason that you don't know the science. You also clearly don't know the difference between 'proof' and 'theory'. Proof is for mathematicians.

In fact, a negative belief seated in clear agnosticism is the more scientific perspective. You say that the evidence points to a creator, but have yet to point out the evidence that leads to that conclusion, just assertion that it's obvious/true or that no other explanation is possible. These are not positive evidence for creation; it's not scientists being biased about the data, it's a lack of conclusive evidence. Often the very evidence for creation is simply not also evidence against it, or more likely, evidence of another hypothesis (or in some cases, theory).

You can only say as much as the data offers, nothing more. Creation universally requires adding info on top of what is present in the data.

That is valid. Radiation damage (by ionising radiation) occurs by knocking electrons out of orbit - which is almost a definition of a chemical process.

You are just repeating yourself and adding nothing. The three 'facts' you quote are wrong - as has been demonstrated.
You are also clearly not able/willing to learn, which is disappointing, given that you have knowledgable people trying to teach you some basics.
You might 'not expect scientists' to be right all the time - fine. However we expect YOU to understand the basic science you criticise, and the simple fact is that you don't.

I don't need to be a scientist to see that those facts are wrong. Their faults have already been pointed out in this thread.

1 life come from life
Then the life that created the initial life must also have a creator. If God is the inital life, then God needs a creator.
Here, you say: "God is infinite, he does not need a creator." There, you just disproved your own assertion. If God is life, and doesn't need to come from life, for whatever reason, then life doesn't have to come from life.

2 a dog gets more dogs
... with slight changes in their DNA. They're not absolute, perfect copies. By crossbreeding dogs you can end up with different breeds.

3 there is design in life
And the evidence for that is... ?

Of course it shows that life CAN be designed. I never said otherwise. What it also shows is that your assertion that life must come from life is wrong.
It DOESN'T show that life MUST be designed, merely that it CAN be designed. The fact that you cannot see this means that you are either dogmatically blind to the evidence, or don't understand basic logic.

You are not listening.
Your 3 'facts' have been demolished in this thread - more than once.
Therefore your conclusions are based on fallacy and likely to be bogus.
Why don't you address the facts that have been provided for you:
a) Evolution is a witnessed fact
b) Evolution is a witnessed fact.
c) Evolution is a witnessed fact.

(Maybe if I say it enough times, you might understand it).

You do realise, I hope, that you are adding a confirming example in support of the thesis that supporters of creationism are intellectually dishonest, ignorant of the basic science & dogmatiically inflexible?
Specifically you ignore evidence that does not fit your model, repeat assertions which have been refuted, demonstrate that you don't understand basic theory in either biology or physics, make untrue claims about your knowledge of science & misrepresent/misconstrue postings (either deliberately or through ignorance).

If he changes his mind at time t+x then the consequence is that things proceed differently. Since, at time t, he knew what would happen in future, it follows that he was either wrong at time t or is not omnipotent (lacking the ability to change his mind at time t+x).

Your alternative means that God would not know, at time t, what would happen beyond time t+x, unless he had already assumed the change of mind, in which case it would not BE a change of mind....

Incidentally, omnipresence is also a paradox.

If X exists in every possible location available then it follows that everything is X.

Go and study some science and come back when you:
a) Know something about the science you keep misrepresenting
b) Are prepared to engage in HONEST debate.

I can provide a reading list if you like.

As a biologist, I'm quite comfortable with the fact that we don't conclusively know where life came from (naturalistic or divine, it's unimportant), but to say there is no evidence is demonstrative of ignorance. It's true that there's not currently a conclusive answers, but that's not to say that we're uncomfortable with the question.
We also don't overlook the question. We're well aware if it, it's actively being studied... we recognize that all we have are hypotheses at this time. We can deliver answer, but they are, in part, speculation. We don't have enough data to say anything for sure, naturalistic or divine.

Either way, as has been mentioned, the origin of life and evolution are separate topics. Evolution applies once life has begun, not to the origin. It's like applying chemistry to nuclear physics, chemistry deals with elements and combining them into compounds; it does not apply to the synthesis of the elements themselves.

a) Nobody here has said they can prove God does not exist, so this is one long straw-man fallacy
b) Clearly science and religion co-exist already, so that is another straw-man fallacy.
c) The lies highlighted are basic untruths that are demonstrable, not matters of opinion or 'bias'.
d) You haven't got a clue what the science community is saying, so that is assertion from ignorance.
e) Not everyone here is an amateur science buff. I am, as I have frequently stated, but you will find no assertion by me that is not supported by the science community in general (with the exception of a tiny number of creationist scientists who have nothing worth listening to, since they have never published in the journals).

*Facepalm*

We're done, epi97.

This thread has diverged somewhat from saratdear's format, I suggest we get back on track.

No it isn't scientific since it requires an infinite regress and we know that life on earth had a definite starting point. It is completely UN-scientific.
What is more, your previous posting about evolution is just one more lie in a growing list. The evidence for evooution is, as has been demonstrated, overwhelming. The fact that you have not read the evidence cited speaks to your dishonesty.

Think of it like gravity; we know gravity exists, and we even have an ok understanding of it... but we're still investigating it. We never stop exploring, and sometimes we find more than we thought we might.

Put another way - science is not set up to allow an unchanging 'truth', since any such 'truth' is contingent upon evidence and there is always the possibility that new evidence will contradict that 'truth'. That is why science deals in theory and hypothesis.

This is set out by Karl Popper in his solution to the problem of induction. Simply put, the problem of induction can be reduced to a simple exemplar:

Observation : the sun rose today.
Historic/supporting data : the sun has risen on every day for which there are records.
Induction : the sun will rise tomorrow.

This is NOT valid as a 'truth'. A moment of thought will tell one that this induced 'law' cannot be always true, since it is inevitable that one day the sun will NOT rise (eventually the sun will burn-out and in the process will probably incinerate the earth). Therefore it may be a good 'guide', but it cannot be said to be a scientific law, much less a universal 'truth'.

All induced 'truth' is contingent, and the word 'truth' is actually inappropriate - which is why it does not generally appear in science.

Popper's solution was the one generally adopted by science - don't try to prove something is true, try to prove it is false.*

* Obviously one counter-observation is enough to invalidate the 'sun law' - whereas no amount of confirming observations can validate it.

Man, the troll feeding has really fattened up this thread, but the original question has only been dealt with - so far as i can tell - twice. So ignoring the crazies, i'm gonna take another stab at it.

That many scientists believe in God doesn't mean that the concept of God holds up in a scientific context. What those scientists do or believe in their spare time is irrelevant. If they enjoy playing golf, then that doesn't mean that playing golf is a scientific process or in any way part of science.

Science is an objective form of research. It is seperate from any individual's beliefs.

If a scientists who believes in God finds conclusive evidence to the contrary, (s)he would accept that there is no God. (Of course, no such evidence can be found, as you can't prove a negative.)

As usual it is lazy and wrong assertions being made by the theists.
Lazy, because it is easy to check the assertion that scientists are a likely to be religious as the general population. And completely wrong. The assertion that 'many many' scientists are religious is pretty meaningless, since in a large enough sample, 'many' can still mean a 'small proportion'.

The American National Academicy of Science is the US equivalant of our Royal Society - it is the 'premiere league' for scientists. Both have been surveyed regarding religious belief, and both, interestingly enough, show very similar results. I'll come to that later.

With regard to scientists in general - scientists are much more likely to be atheists than the general population. In the US about 14% of the population has 'no religious affiliation.' Various surveys show the scientists are about 50-60% non-religiously affiiated - interestingly the 'higher up' you go, the greater the proportion of atheists. This supports surveys which show a correlation between intelligence and belief in God (a negative correlation).
http://www.secularism.org.uk/83676.html
http://religion.ssrc.org/reforum/Ecklund.pdf

With regard to top scientists in their field (members of the National Academy in the US) about 7% believe in a personal God (compared to 83% of the general population). In the UK about 3% of members of the Royal Society believe in a personal God.
EJ Larson and L Witham: 'Leading scientists still reject God', Nature, p394, 1998, 313
http://www.lhup.edu/~dsimanek/sci_relig.htm

One of the difficulties is in the wording of the various surveys. Somde use 'religious affiliation', some use 'belief in a personal God', and others use more sophisticated 'scaled' questions. The fact remains, however, that whatever type of question is used, scientists are far more likely to not believe in God that the general population, and the more eminent the scientist, the less likely they are to be theist.

Well...It all depends on the person's view...! if something unusual,peculiar wuld have happened with him/her and he/she was not able to think that it'll turn to something positive and if it would have turned so...he/she might believe in God or you can say the entity who's over everyone and helps everyone.

Personally i feel and believe that God existed in this world but haven't seen him in reality or never had any kind of confrontation !! But whenever i'm in vain i just pray to God and having faith in him/her solves my problem..!! Smile

So I believe in God !!

Wikipedia says

This simply adds a whole new set of lies to your previous lies. Your knowledge of paleontology is notable by its complete absence.
PS - the idea that 'many scientists' disagree with the theory of evolution is a myth created, quite dishonestly, by creationists. The overwhelming majority of scientists accept evolution as fact. When challenged to produce a list of these 'many scientists' the creationists usually resort to a list which is mostly academics in engineering and IT - not scientists.

Bikerman: I'd like to repost something I think you missed -

Sorry, yes I did miss it.
The answer is yes. The reason is that I have debated many creationists over many years and I have noticed a basic disconnect which is either congitive dissonance or dishonesty. There are only a tiny number of scientists who profess creationism - Behe is the only one I know, and Behe is, I think, an example of a scientist who I would not trust.
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/06/of-cilia-and-si.html
http://pandasthumb.org/archives/2007/08/erv-hiv-versus.html#more
Even his colleagues find it necessary to post a special notice on the University website

In the first paragraph you appear to be saying that evolution is wrong. In the second you seem to be saying that God invented evolution. Which is it?

Other evidence for a creator
The creator left us with a experience and writings.
This been proven accurate from archaeology, and historians. The prophecies have come true, and the writings are in harmony with itself.
There is also evidence from how man thinks and does things.

So this along with, the 3 facts I mentioned, are in harmony.

There is no doubt, of a creator.

Now it is true that many ( most ) people do not really want to know about a creator. It means accountability.

@Bikerman - As Ankhanu said, I find the department close minded as well, if (and that's a big if) he doesn't mix his work with religion. (But he seems to be doing that)

My question was would you trust him if he doesn't mix his work with religion. Sort of like asking would you accept a kleptomaniac as your housekeeper if he swears not to go into remission. Razz

Precisely. In fact many top academics have tenure - which means there is nothing much the University can do to sack them, even if they would wish to do so.
The lie about suppression is one I have seen repeated many times - even on these forums. When challenged to substantiate such claims nothing substantial is ever provided.
I think I'll compile a FAQ which goes through the top creationist lies and explains why they are lies and how we know. It would, I think, be useful.

PS - I detected the irony and didn't think the 'criticism' was seriously intended Smile

There is nothing in the creation account that says the earth or universe has to be a young as 10,000 years. I don't necessarily trust the scientists claims of age only because who knows if their methods are accurate or not? Though the many generations of animals and the time plants for example took to spread around the earth , means that the earth and life could be very old. So even if you take the scientists claims of billions of years , the creation account does not contradict that.
As for tenure for scientists. Because they have that, there are other reasons to not break with the dogma, and the has to be with keeping the respect of their peers. And some, I think, really believe 'evolution' happens.

A creationist could be a very good scientists if it wasn't for the prejudice, from the rest of the scientific community. Actually he would be leaps and bounds ahead of the pack.

The reason for that is he would be held back by the assumptions of the ‘evolution’ and the non life start to life.
I give the example the Miller experiments. He conducted experiments base on the idea that life could happen from non life. ( an assumption) What he should have done, is try to create life . With the best conditions for life and the understanding of how cells work, and do what it took to create life.
If you keep trying to prove something that is not provable, like many scientists say they probably will never be able to prove life came from non life. (hello )

Your man Ventnor, used computers and materials in a lab to try to cell, and that is with equipment and years of research from other’s as well as his own work.

So if the scientific community didn’t pollute, their science, with assumptions and their ‘facts’ ( base with no evidence) there would no problem with creation scientists at all. It’s just the system weeds out anyone that doesn’t go with the dogma.

Now on ‘evolution’ which is only a hypothetical discussion anyway. Because life was impossible without creation, so ‘evolution’ as the scientists say could never happen.
So ‘evolution’ is based on one kind of life became another over time. But there is no evidence for that. There are no transitional animals, and the evidence we have is the dogs get more dogs.
You would have to show that a whale or some example like that became a dog over time.
Where is the evidence? Or is it only an idea?

The problem is the theistic element, which is an unsupported (by evidence) stance. It comes down to exactly what you created this thread to discuss.

In terms of evolution, that "theistic" portion is completely irrelevant; whether it's there or not has no impact upon the theory; as has been mentioned, evolution does not address origin of life, which the theistic portion does.
So, the problem comes down to the basic question of whether or not a god exists, how god is defined and how we can know its nature if it does exist... It's not a problem for evolution but a problem in the basic question on the existence of god and how we evaluate evidence.

This is why theism and evolution can happily(ish) coexist... one does not really speak to the other ( depending on how one defines their theism and the role of gods).

Here, I'll say this as politely as I possibly can... it has taken much restraint from replying the way I want to to these comments...

Please stop lying.

Thank you.

Who said it was simple?
This entire argument is another silly one.
Analogy:
Man can also make snow - we do it all the time for ski resorts. Snow crystals LOOK designed.
The fact that man makes them means they MUST be designed.

As an argument it is a very very bad one.

Evolution also happens naturally, but you don't accept that, so why would anything else you say be worthy of consideration?
As we have seen, you are trying to argue for intelligent design, but you don't really understand science, theory, or basic logic. This is a very bad starting point to try to argue ANY point - yet creationists frquently feel that they are somehow competent to have an opinion.

You really don't listen. The evidence for a dog BECOMING a whale is pretty strong and has already been provided. Clearly you ignored it, since you didn't even get the fact that you had it the wrong way around.
You have also been provided of the documats showing that speciation has been observed in the lab - you completely ignore it and repeat your nonsense. It isn't just dishonest - it's stupid, because anyone can read back up the thread.

As i said - what is the point in pandering to an ignoramus with no intention of learning anything?

I didn't edit your posting - it was my reply. Your posting is intact., The only edits I have made at all to your postings was to remove a section repeated a dozen times, and remove a posting which was itself a repeat of a repeat.

So , come on then, tell us why you refuse to accept evolution, even though speciation is an observed fact??

I'm still waiting for you to explain how you manage to ignore the fact that speciation has BEEN SEEN to happen.

Here you go...lots of examples
http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/faq-speciation.html#part5

Is it possible to try analyzing evolution in reverse? Go back from humans all the way to the first form of life?

I will be looking in now and again to KEEP IT on track.

Exactly!
But as there is still time for it, all people still have an opportunity, to get to know God.
So I as a human, I can’t say, who are the acceptable ones and who aren’t. So all get the opportunity, to decide for themselves.

Just the preface of this book looks awfully familiar...
Scientists confront creationism - ed. Laurie R. Godfrey, 1983

Go ahead, give it a read.

This is just to inform posters that I am actively monitoring and moderating this thread using the new guidelines (see the sticky on trolling), and I am removing ANY posting that distracts from the main point under discussion. In the main this means postings which:

repeat points that have already been dealt with
refer to completely irrelevant/unrelated concepts

If your posting is removed and you wish to challenge the decision, you can pm me (or one of the other mods) and make your case. Please do NOT challenge such decisions here in the thread, because it will simply be removed.

Moderator
[Bikerman]

No, what I should (and will) delete is any claim that evidence has not been provided or that evidence does not exist.

Try dealing with the evidence rather than simply lying.

Can someone else please point out the fallacies on this one - my time is limited and I can only debunk a small number at any one time. Besides, this is child's play.

Practice one of the things needed for critical thinking - information retrieval skills.

Acually this is a scientific proposal and it can be tested.
IF the point of other creatures was to prepare the land for man, then we would expect a host of benign animals and plants. On the other hand, if 'evolution' is correct then we would expect to see the evolution of animals and plants which were inimical to mankind, being in competition for similar resources.

So what do we actually see? The latter of course.

Sagan's potrayal of the 'start' is still a powerful and wonderful sequence - much more awe-inspiring and grandiose than the silly and parochial 'Genesis' myth.

Truespeed, if I'm going to get mad at the theists for incorrect use (within context), I have to get mad at you too!

"Dinosaur fertilizer hypothesis," it's not theory Razz

Every explanation is a story... some have more merit than others.

In terms of Big Bang, no one has contested that it is the only possible explanation, or that we have any idea what may have happened before Planck Time; we've been very open with what we definitely do not know. Big Bang is currently the best model that we have, however. Is it absolutely accurate? No. Does it hold a lot of explanatory and predictive power? Yes it does... and it has the most, at this time.
Physics is currently poised to make tremendous leaps in theory... there are many exciting and interesting hypotheses being explored that, as yet, do not have experimental/observational verification. Many of these, if evidence supports them, could greatly upheave many cosmological theories, Big Bang included. That does not change that it is currently the best theory.

For centuries, Newtonian motion was the best theory we had... then came General Relativity and its refinements... it completely changed physics in many ways. Newtonian motion is still useful for low speed motion and approximately accurate, so is still taught and used, but, it has been superceded by superior theory. It took a long time, but it did happen.

This is how science operates.
This works pretty well!
But it breaks down here...
Guess we need to fix it then so that it works here AND there...
It just takes time to make the fixes.

Theology decides that it knows, and, in the face of evidence that it breaks down, just denies the situation.

Indeed.
I was quite clear how I labelled the video - Sagan's portrayal - and that is just what it was. It had a few facts which we can now correct - such as the 15 billion year age - and few personal interpretations. It WAS pretty consistent with the facts that we do have, however, and there was nothing substantive in it that we would now say was just plain wrong. If there was, then I would have probably been linking to a different video that summarised the new picture.

Just about every theological explanation I am aware of has things in it that are just 'plain wrong' and have been known to be wrong for a long time.

The only thing you have shown is :
a) Your own ignorance
b) Your ability to lie without any indication of remorse
c) Your willingness to misquote, misrepresent and otherwise post dishonest nonsense.

You came here to show that evolution was a fancy, you have been comprehensively demolished.

This video may help:

This one too:

If God can lift an infinity, as Indi says, there is NO way to test that claim, and therefore it cannot be accepted except as a matter of faith.

What evidence? You have steadfastly refused to consider the evidence - for example, the evidence that speciation HAS BEEN OBSERVED. Instead you concoct some bizarre conspiracy theory where persons unknown are conning all the scientists into publishing evidence that creationism is a crock, and that evolutionary theory is true.
It is interesting how your delusion has developed. You started by claiming to be able to show that evolution was untrue. You repeat the same nonsense over and over, despite it being soundly refuted. You then try to shift the debate onto 'God of the Gaps' by saying that scientists cannot definitely disprove God (nobody ever suggested otherwise) as if this was some admission that God actually exists. Finally you give up and declare that scientists are all part of some worldwide conspiracy.

Whenever infinity enters an argument it precedes a world of pain for the person introducing it.
You can't use the inability to prove something as a disproof, so we cannot validly say that because we can never proove an infinite 'power' that means that such a thing does not exist. You CAN however, validly say other things about omnipotence, especially when considered with other 'omnis'. For example, omniscience and omnipotence are mutually exclusive, as demonstrated earlier. One can also point out the inherent paradox in any notion of omnipotence:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnipotence_paradox

I think you can just say that God exists because we exists. I don't know if animals know who God is or maybe Martins do.

Not really related to the thread - but today I was arguing with my friend and the Free Will vs Determinism topic came up. What he seemed to suggest was we have Free Will, but God knows what we are going to do anyway. While I tried to convince him that God's pre-knowledge implies predetermined, he doesn't agree.

What do you think?

It is an old argument and not one which need be shackled by religious consideration.
Personally I think that the classical notion of free will is a myth. The classical argument for this is put by philosopher JJC Smart

If action is random it isn't free, by definition. A random event is one determined probabilistically - it cannot be under human control because it doesn't depend on any prior state of the universe.

If it is random then it cannot be free WILL. Take the dice:
You have 6 possible outcomes. If it is tuly random, then at no particular point is the outcome predetermined (ie at no point does the result become inevitable, before it actually occurs). So there is no 'room' for a human 'will' to be saying 'I will do this'.

Universe is present, Earth is present, living and non-living are present.... We are present, so why not ghost are present? why not aliens are present? why not God is present? of course all are present. We humans are possible then all are possible.

Universe is present, humans are present, so why not a 60ft Gorilla, wearing a pink dress, called Englebert, who lists, as his main hobbies, conducting symphony orchestras and quantum physics, and who spends his spare time solving the time independant schroedinger equation for fun?
We humans are possible therefore Englebert is certainly possible.

If you see him, say Hi from bikerman.

Sorry to interrupt the stream but is Englebert single?

There will be perhaps 6 possible outcomes therefore whether I go on a date or not will be my choice and if I “will it not to happen” it will not happen. The other possibility is I will .. “will it to happen” and depending again on some possibilities it may happen or not. – if that makes sense or not who knows but Englebert may get dumped anyway cause it is a crap shoot.

“God's pre-knowledge implies predetermined”

if
God is considered controlling
then
false

if
God understands us well and can predict accurately
then
true

Knowledge makes prediction obsolete.
Either God knows, or God does not know. If God does not know, then God is not "all knowing" as stated in the Bible (i.e. Hebrews 4:13, Matthew 6: Cool

, and may make probabilistic predictions based on what is known. If God does know, well, what's there to predict, since the outcome is known. If the outcome is known, it is suggested that it is, get this, determined and cannot be changed.