The Problem of Free Will, A Theological Problem. Options

[NoSex]

Alright, the purpose of this thread is to discuss the theological Problem of Free Will. So, under common christian theolgy, God is described as being all-knowing (omniscient) and all powerful (omnipotent). Men are also described as having free will. This is at the heart of the reality of theological fatalism. Solving this issue is vital to christian theology as it becomes an inherent contradiction as well as threatening to the christian conception of salvation and damnation.

I hold that God's infallible foreknowledge makes impossible man's free will. If god knows the future, how can we choose our own path?

Discuss.

[flc]

I agree with you.

I guess people could argue that the idea behind free will is that YOU yourself make it, that there is no one else there making your decisions. They could say that just because God knows what will happen, he isn't telling you what to do.

[sadolakced acid]

we choose the path.

god ordains the destiny.

a paper plane and a lead weight both will reach the ground, they just go different paths.

[racoons > you]

we choose the path.

god ordains the destiny.

a paper plane and a lead weight both will reach the ground, they just go different paths.

agreed.

if god knows im going to cambridge, i can get thier etierh via the a14 or the a1.

*shrugs*

[*disco infiltrator*]

But wouldn't God know how you're going to get there because he would know what you're about to experience and what will happen on the way there?

[sadolakced acid]

he does to the extent that you know a ball will get to the ground by way of falling.

and since god created all humans and thier personalities, he has ordained which choices each will make.

so yes.

[vash1530]

^that contradicts free will because it implies a set path for which god already knows ur gonna take, meaning there is no other path for u...

[racoons > you]

oh i dont know...

if god is omnipotent, he can stop himself being omniscient, and therefore humans can choose their own destiny

[NoSex]

oh i dont know...

if god is omnipotent, he can stop himself being omniscient, and therefore humans can choose their own destiny

But then he would no longer be omniscient, and no longer God. So, unless God has the power (well, he is supposed to be omnipotent?) to make himself not God, then no. That wouldn't exactly work.

Isn't it fun to push the conception of a christian God. The further you dive into it, the more and more incoherent it seems to become. At the end of a discussion, you might find yourself with a simply meaningless web of incompatible properties and verbalistic nonsense.

The question still remains, "How can we have free will, if God has ultimate and absolute foreknowledge?"

[racoons > you]

^
we cant.. im just playing with ideas.

i dunno... just because he turns off an aspec tof himself, doesnt mean it isnt still there... he is omniscient, he just chooses, through hi somnipotence, not to use it

[*disco infiltrator*]

But how could he not use it? If "everything happens according to God's plan", how could he not be using his omniscience? If you know something, there's no way you can't...use it. You know it anyway. You can't make yourself forget.

[Paradox of Life]

The question still remains, "How can we have free will, if God has ultimate and absolute foreknowledge?"

Wow, I never thought of this and it's a really good point to bring up.

When I think of something to say in response to this question, I just think of destiny. If God has 'ultimate and absolute foreknowledge', I would think he'd see the future as ultimate and absolute, like the big picture. Man has free will to an extent, but ultimately it will end up a certain way. Like all the little battles and accidents and poor decisions made during the Civil War and The Revolutionary War all led up to the United States and its economic and social stability now and that's what was destined for it. And God could foresee that and by destiny, Man achieved this goal. Well, what if everyone decided not to fulfill this goal? That's not possible because one ignorant mind really can't change a million other minds. It's like when you see hundreds of fish swimming down a river by current, you know their destination, but it's their free will to swim that way. And if one decides to swim backwards, uh, oh well.

I hope that's what you're talking about or I'll just have been babbling for nothing.

[*mipadi*]

When I think of something to say in response to this question, I just think of destiny. If God has 'ultimate and absolute foreknowledge', I would think he'd see the future as ultimate and absolute, like the big picture. Man has free will to an extent, but ultimately it will end up a certain way. Like all the little battles and accidents and poor decisions made during the Civil War and The Revolutionary War all led up to the United States and its economic and social stability now and that's what was destined for it.

But what's the cutoff, then? If God can see a hundred years into the future, surely he can see a month, or a week, or a day or an hour or even ten seconds, can't he?

[oXMuhNirvanaXo]

ok .. if a bird is flying south and the bird wants to fly south.. it will fly south... follow with me here... so.. if God knows that there is a big tree about 2 inces away from the bird .. god knows the bird is going to hit the tree .. but the bird has a chance to change its mind.. ( free will ) So if the bird hits the tree it is the birds own falt.. it could have gone north.


( free will part = north or south )
-_-

[*CrackedRearView*]

ok .. if a bird is flying south and the bird wants to fly south.. it will fly south... follow with me here... so.. if God knows that there is a big tree about 2 inces away from the bird .. god knows the bird is going to hit the tree .. but the bird has a chance to change its mind.. ( free will ) So if the bird hits the tree it is the birds own falt.. it could have gone north.
( free will part = north or south )
-_-

Yet, God knows the bird is going to smack the tree because He knows everything, which sparks the question of how on earth we have free will if God knows everything we're going to do...

[sadolakced acid]

which is why god, as defined to be omnipotent and allowing of free will and all that other stuff, cannot exist.

[vash1530]

Random question to Acid Bath Slayer: Have you read Friederich Nietzche and, if so, do u agree with his opinions on religion and nihilism?

[NoSex]

Random question to Acid Bath Slayer: Have you read Friederich Nietzche and, if so, do u agree with his opinions on religion and nihilism?

I have read some Nietzsche (Anti-Christ). I could talk about some of his views for some time as alot of them are very interesting. But, when it comes to Nietzsche, I like alot of his meta-ethical ideas more than his views towards religion or what he saw as the impending nihilism. When it came to his religious convictions, it seemed to have alot more to do with the Church ignoring the true "Jesus," and becoming a slave morality which was served to control and corrupt. I do not exactly disagree, not to say that I agree. Also, impending nihilism hasn't seemed to kick in yet, and no matter how much, "God is dead," religion lives on. So, he was clearly wrong about alot of things concerning the not-so-distant developments of western society. But, I do like Nietzche for the most part.

[racoons > you]

But how could he not use it? If "everything happens according to God's plan", how could he not be using his omniscience? If you know something, there's no way you can't...use it. You know it anyway. You can't make yourself forget.

yes you can. you're omnipotent.

and if you do, you arent omniscient.

and if you cant, you arent omnipotent.

ergo, no god.

[*CrackedRearView*]

^ Incorrect. There may be a God, but we simply don't have free will.

[NoSex]

^ Incorrect. There may be a God, but we simply don't have free will.

Or, there may be a god but he isn't Omnipotent.
Or, he isn't omniscient.
Or, we don't have free will.
Or, he isn't any of these things.
Or, he simply does not exist.

All we can do, on an analytical level, is disprove specific definitions of a God. For example, the common Christian God who gives man free will, yet holds his omnipotence and omniscience.
So, we can prove the negative existential proposition, but it holds, just as any other proof, to basic epistemological standards.

[sadolakced acid]

^ Incorrect. There may be a God, but we simply don't have free will.

then there is no god, as god's power comes from people freely choosing him over the devil.

[vash1530]

I have read some Nietzsche (Anti-Christ). I could talk about some of his views for some time as alot of them are very interesting. But, when it comes to Nietzsche, I like alot of his meta-ethical ideas more than his views towards religion or what he saw as the impending nihilism. When it came to his religious convictions, it seemed to have alot more to do with the Church ignoring the true "Jesus," and becoming a slave morality which was served to control and corrupt. I do not exactly disagree, not to say that I agree. Also, impending nihilism hasn't seemed to kick in yet, and no matter how much, "God is dead," religion lives on. So, he was clearly wrong about alot of things concerning the not-so-distant developments of western society. But, I do like Nietzche for the most part.

thankyou. now i have a better idea of where ur coming from. im a nihilist in the sense that:

Nihilism as a philosophical position argues that the world, and especially human existence, is without objective meaning, purpose, comprehensible truth, or essential value. Nihilists generally believe all of the following: God doesn't exist, traditional morality is false, and secular ethics are impossible; therefore, life has no meaning, and no action is preferable to any other.

ibelieve in all parts of this statement except the latter.

[twin__cinema]

Oh gosh... I used to have a really good explaination in my head for this when I was in my Philosphy of Religion class last fall. Hmmm. I'll try to explain best I can.

I myself am not a believer in "God", but here's a theory:
If "God" is indeed truely what is claimed, he IS omniscient. I don't think that really means that he knows exactly what you're going to do, with free will being involved. Think of it as a branching path. He can foresee all possibilities. Let's say you're walking down a path, and it forks into three smaller ones. God is fully aware of all of them. He provides free will, and allows you to choose. Every path leads you to a different life, filled with other choices. Perhaps he can't see what will happen in the far off future exactly, but only the possibilities and what comes with every choice.


I also read The Anti-Christ (Most of it, anyway. Just what I was required for my class). My opinion on Friedrich Nietzsche isn't exactly positive, nor is it negative. To me, Mr. Nietzsche seems more like an angry teenager in his mom's basement proclaiming how much everything sucks (who was actually a hermit living in the moutains somewhere in Europe. Same environment, really). If anything, he sounds like a total ignoramous ranting about everything under the sun. Once you kind of get to know his background, you understand him more. He isn't ignorant, but his father was a Lutheran Pastor, who died when Nietzsche was only 7. Like in many families, he was expected to follow in his father's footsteps because he was the oldest son. So, he followed by going to school to also become a Pastor. He soon dropped out and became an uber Atheist. Basically, he experienced Christianity from the inside out, so to speak. And he died of The Clap.

That's my little rundown on our friend Friedrich, for those who are ignorant. :]

When it came to his religious convictions, it seemed to have alot more to do with the Church ignoring the true "Jesus," and becoming a slave morality which was served to control and corrupt. I do not exactly disagree, not to say that I agree.

For the most part, he thought Jesus was a pretty dandy fellow. I don't think he really had anything against him, but it was more the religion aspect that he was against. He believed all Christians were "sheep", and going against typical human nature. Christianity is the exact opposite of what our nature is, and as humans, we are more aggressive, and we are for the most part, skeptics. People don't want to shut up and listen to someone tell them what to believe, submit, and have all these ideologies crammed into their craniums. No, that's not how we are. Religion is against what we are in every sense.

I don't know if I'd say slave "morality", but I think he's saying religion is a slave-like corruption of the mind and spirit. Religion forces you to submit to "faith", rather than something such as Secular Humanism (would that be considered a religion? I know most Secular Humanists are nontheists, but I don't know). Hmm.

Nietzsche is also a skeptic of the leaders of religions. He believes they are among the worst people on this planet. According to my philosophy teacher, Nietzche would rather chill with a child molester than the Pope any day. Haha. Anyway. He was a firm believer that most "higher ups"/teachers of religion abused their power to get ahead in the world, and anyone who would follow them are basically, well, their bitches. If a priest said to drink the poisoned Kool-Aid, the followers would be forced to do so, because they are "slaves to their faith".

Also, impending nihilism hasn't seemed to kick in yet, and no matter how much, "God is dead," religion lives on.

I don't really see why these two points are connected. Many people have Nihilistic views, so I wouldn't say it hasn't kicked in yet.

And the "God is dead" theory is pretty stupid. In order to free ourselves from religion, we must "kill God"? That doesn't seem very plausable. Maybe in our minds, we can "kill God" in a non-literal sense, but if he does in fact exist, we can't just erase him from our minds and call the guy dead. Nietzsche, you silly douche.

So, he was clearly wrong about alot of things concerning the not-so-distant developments of western society.

Not really. He was pretty correct on the fact that Western religion is based on Christanity, and is pretty closed minded to any other beliefs/faiths.

Hmm. My brain is soup. You'll hear more from me later.

[*mipadi*]

And the "God is dead" theory is pretty stupid. In order to free ourselves from religion, we must "kill God"? That doesn't seem very plausable. Maybe in our minds, we can "kill God" in a non-literal sense, but if he does in fact exist, we can't just erase him from our minds and call the guy dead. Nietzsche, you silly douche.
Not really. He was pretty correct on the fact that Western religion is based on Christanity, and is pretty closed minded to any other beliefs/faiths.

But Nietzsche didn't literally believe God was dead, nor did he literally believe anyone had killed Him or would kill Him. His statement merely means that the traditional concept of a god is no longer valid in today's world, or, more to the point, no one truly adheres to the concept anymore; meaning that no one really believes that there is an all-powerful god who created heaven and earth and directs us in our ways. Some people may buy into some religious concepts, and some people may pay lip service to a god, but no one truly follows the traditional concept of a divine being.

[twin__cinema]

But Nietzsche didn't literally believe God was dead, nor did he literally believe anyone had killed Him or would kill Him. His statement merely means that the traditional concept of a god is no longer valid in today's world...

Yeah, I suppose that's true, but my point was that just because you "kill" Him in your mind doesn't completely eliminate him from all existance. If there is in fact a God, and when we die, according to the Bible, he will be there to judge us. What I got from Nietzche's point was if you kill him from your mind, he will no longer exist. Maybe I took that the wrong way.

...no one really believes that there is an all-powerful god who created heaven and earth and directs us in our ways. Some people may buy into some religious concepts, and some people may pay lip service to a god, but no one truly follows the traditional concept of a divine being.

That's just Nietzche's cynical over-generalizating ways, and where I call bullshit. Devoted believers still remain, and few people are still genuinely following their faith.

Like I said, he resembles pissed off ignorant teenager.

[*mipadi*]

Yeah, I suppose that's true, but my point was that just because you "kill" Him in your mind doesn't completely eliminate him from all existance. If there is in fact a God, and when we die, according to the Bible, he will be there to judge us. What I got from Nietzche's point was if you kill him from your mind, he will no longer exist. Maybe I took that the wrong way.

Does it not? No man can know until he dies (presumably) whether a higher power exists, so the only thing keeping God "alive" (or in existence) during his time on earth is his belief in God. If humanity as a whole believes God does not exist, then does God exist--or, more to the point, does He still have any power? If no one is living under the influence of God, then does it even matter if He exists? In other words, if God (or the belief of God) has no power over man, does he really exist (at least during man's terrestrial existence)?

[twin__cinema]

Does it not? No man can know until he dies (presumably) whether a higher power exists, so the only thing keeping God "alive" (or in existence) during his time on earth is his belief in God. If humanity as a whole believes God does not exist, then does God exist--or, more to the point, does He still have any power? If no one is living under the influence of God, then does it even matter if He exists? In other words, if God (or the belief of God) has no power over man, does he really exist (at least during man's terrestrial existence)?

Ah, good point(s).

However, that's only on one level of our mortal existance. What about after this life?

[oXMuhNirvanaXo]

Yet, God knows the bird is going to smack the tree because He knows everything, which sparks the question of how on earth we have free will if God knows everything we're going to do...

But we dont know what god knows which means anything could happen. The real question is why wont god steer us in the right direction if he is o so powerfull but that must be fate right? You cant change your fate.


Let me get this out there... I am a bleaver in god but we all have are questions...

[twin__cinema]

But we dont know what god knows which means anything could happen. The real question is why wont god steer us in the right direction if he is o so powerfull but that must be fate right? You cant change your fate.
Let me get this out there... I am a bleaver in god but we all have are questions...

Then that will completely eliminate free will. If he "steered us" in the "right" direction, then we would have no free will, and we would be forced to go a certain way. We would have no choices to make on our own, and our lives would be entirely mapped out. We would not be people, we would merely be robots.

I don't know if I believe in "fate", I don't know if anything is destined to happen when free will is involved.

[oXMuhNirvanaXo]

yes thats right. im mistakein.

We all have to disifer God in our own way. My journey with christ is between me and him. There for he gives me free will to sin or not sin this is the basic truth on free will.

[D1SMANTLED]

haha this is sorta turning into a debate about the existance of god... I'll plug free will and God together then. well supposedly God gave us free will so we can choose do do good. If he didnt want us to sin or suffer, he could have made us to not do so...but then it would just be mere programming, not really true good deeds.

btw, its okay if you dont believe in God, supposedly. The bible says to have faith, and faith is to believe in something you cant really put your finger on...with that theres a possibility that God doesn't really exist. He may be there if you believe in him, he might not if you dont.

[NoSex]

If "God" is indeed truely what is claimed, he IS omniscient. I don't think that really means that he knows exactly what you're going to do, with free will being involved.

Main Entry: om·ni·scient
Pronunciation: -sh&nt
Function: adjective
Etymology: New Latin omniscient-, omnisciens, back-formation from Medieval Latin omniscientia
1 : having infinite awareness, understanding, and insight
2 : possessed of universal or complete knowledge
- om·ni·scient·ly adverb

Alright. If God truly is omniscient, by definition, he really does know exactly what you're going to do, free will or no free will. So, your first premise is a contradiction in terms, which inevitable, given your argument requires said premise, makes your argument invalid.

Think of it as a branching path. He can foresee all possibilities. Let's say you're walking down a path, and it forks into three smaller ones. God is fully aware of all of them. He provides free will, and allows you to choose. Every path leads you to a different life, filled with other choices. Perhaps he can't see what will happen in the far off future exactly, but only the possibilities and what comes with every choice.

Since your premise is false and contradictory, the subsequent argument becomes inherently absurd and meaningless.

To me, Mr. Nietzsche seems more like an angry teenager in his mom's basement proclaiming how much everything sucks (who was actually a hermit living in the moutains somewhere in Europe. Same environment, really).

That's an awful description. For the majority of his life, Nietzsche was decently social. He only became familiar with solitude in his later years, and even then, could not be equated to an "angry teenager in his mom's basement proclaiming how much everything sucks." Nietzsche was a free mind who went against the grain in many of his philosophical positions. He was a very knowledgable and read man. He had worked as a professor, studied under many people, held many friends, published many works, and spent much of his life preparing and perfecting his ideas for future generations. To compare him to this teenager is an awful and shortsighted insult.

Once you kind of get to know his background, you understand him more. He isn't ignorant, but his father was a Lutheran Pastor, who died when Nietzsche was only 7. Like in many families, he was expected to follow in his father's footsteps because he was the oldest son. So, he followed by going to school to also become a Pastor. He soon dropped out and became an uber Atheist. Basically, he experienced Christianity from the inside out, so to speak. And he died of The Clap.

1. His father died when Nietzche was only 5.
2. He never, insofar as I know, went to school to become a Pastor.
3. He studided under Theology (Not to become a Pastor) at the University of Bonn for a short time.
4. Before his time at Bonn, he had been well learned in music and language at esteemed private schools such as Schulpforta. Although Schulpforta was once monastery, by the time Nietzsche had attended, it had long been reformed into a boarding school.
5. Although Nietzsche was an atheist, he rarely developed such arguments. He was a superman but not a super atheist.
6. His atheism could probably be more attributed to his time learning Philology, and with it, ancient mythology.
7. He didn't die of syphilis. He had fallen to pneumonia. It isn't even agreed upon that he ever had syphilis, it's very possible that he hadn't.

That's my little rundown on our friend Friedrich, for those who are ignorant. :]

For the most part, he thought Jesus was a pretty dandy fellow.

This is true. Nietzsche respected the Jesus figure as an overman (superman) and a holder of a master morality.

I don't know if I'd say slave "morality", but I think he's saying religion is a slave-like corruption of the mind and spirit. Religion forces you to submit to "faith", rather than something such as Secular Humanism

Nietzsche described two kinds of morality: A master morality, and a slave morality. A morality that was born out of rationality, reason, and knowledge from the individual would be considered a master morality. A slave morality was a morality derived from fear, insecurity, conformity, ignorance, and obedience.

I don't really see why these two points are connected. Many people have Nihilistic views, so I wouldn't say it hasn't kicked in yet.

Nietzsche had predicted that all of western civilization would fall under a kind of nihilism in at least two centuries (I guess his prediction still has some time to fufill itself). He expected that all values would become devalued. Religion would fall. Science would meet with much trouble. Meaning would implode as a result. This hasn't happened yet.

And the "God is dead" theory is pretty stupid. In order to free ourselves from religion, we must "kill God"? That doesn't seem very plausable. Maybe in our minds, we can "kill God" in a non-literal sense, but if he does in fact exist, we can't just erase him from our minds and call the guy dead. Nietzsche, you silly douche.

Mipadi explained this for the most part.
When Nietzsche said, "God is Dead," he was pertaining to how the concept of a christian God holds up in an increasingly rationale and scientific community. As science was beginning to explain the world around us, Nietzsche believed the influence of the most powerful slave morality, Christianity, would disapear, and the effects of a God, real or imagined, would disapear from the planet leading to his theory of impending nihilism. He saw in the enviroment around him, a very threatening force prepared to assualt the traditional values of western culture. This is what Nietzsche meant to capture in his phrase, "God is dead."

Not really. He was pretty correct on the fact that Western religion is based on Christanity, and is pretty closed minded to any other beliefs/faiths.

Actually, that's not what he thought would happen. He thought it would all disappear into a dangerous nihilism.

I think some things need to be cleared up about our friend Friedrich Nietzsche.
He viewed nihilism as a means to an end. Almost an intermission between two positive philosophical theories. Although Nietzsche spoke of nihilism on many different levels ("nihilism as a normal phenomenon can be a symptom of increasing strength or of increasing weakness"), in the most common sense, Nietzsche was not a nihilist. He refered to himself as a nihilist only so far as he denied traditional values and morality, adhered to his own master morality, and held a relativistic meta-ethical position. Nietzsche infact saw nearly everyone as a kind of nihilist. Although, the nihilistic future that he predicts is both loved and hated by Nietzsche. Nietzsche loves it as a means to a refreshing, real, and healthy positive philosophy, but hates it as a stagnant destructive force. In short, that it is destroying a slave morality is good, but to replace meaninglessness with a less powerful meaninglessness isn't exactly ideal. Nietzsche predicted, and wished, that the impending nihilism would be replaced with a better world view and leave humanity in a more favorable position for progress and future advances in all fields of thought.

Nietzsche refered to overcoming this nihilism as his revaluation of values. In the Will to Power, he wrote that there must be "a movement that in some future will take the place of this perfect nihilism—but presupposes it, logically and psychologically, and certainly can come only after and out of it." This was his revaluation of values.

[Paradox of Life]

But what's the cutoff, then? If God can see a hundred years into the future, surely he can see a month, or a week, or a day or an hour or even ten seconds, can't he?

Well, it's kind of like a book. Humankind actually writes it and God reads it. Does that make any sense at all?

[NoSex]

Well, it's kind of like a book. Humankind actually writes it and God reads it. Does that make any sense at all?

Not possible if God is omniscient and predates humankind.
Granted this would be possible if humankind and our actions did indeed predate God, but they don't. The Christian model is that God came first. So, God new before humankind even existed what was in-store.

[racoons > you]

^ Incorrect. There may be a God, but we simply don't have free will.

that wasnt my point...

and i was talking about a god purely in the terms outlined in the first post.

[*CrackedRearView*]

ergo, no god.

Your point seemed obvious enough to me.

[sadolakced acid]

did jesus make me so i would hate him? did he know when i was born i would hate him? if he didn't, is he really omnicent?

either i have free will, and when i say "jesus sucks", it is of my own choice, and thus god is not omnipotent and therefore not as outlined in the bible, or i don't have free will, adn when i say "jesus sucks", god knew it was going to happen, which means i could have never done any differently (because god is never wrong), and thus i cannot freely believe in jesus, therefore god has no power.

[Spirited Away]

Kind of late... but

Not really. He was pretty correct on the fact that Western religion is based on Christanity, and is pretty closed minded to any other beliefs/faiths.

To be fair, he is NOT close minded to "any other" faith. If you'd refer to the Anti-Christ again, he is rather open minded about Buddhism. Though he does criticize Buddhism on a certain level, he is definitely more positive about it.

[*disco infiltrator*]

FAE! <3333

Justin makes a good point. If all non-believers go to hell, and God knew before any non-believers existed that they would be non-believers, isn't that a little bit of favoritism? If God really loves all people, wouldn't he make it so that all of his creations would go to heaven?

[*CrackedRearView*]

I also think Gregory Koukl offered a good analogy on this question. He said that the free will situation can be compared to what parents do by conceiving children. If God is responsible for the evil we choose to do, then we in turn are responsible for the evil our adult children choose to do. We know in advance that everyone does some amount of evil - at the very least, lying, insulting people or hurting their feelings, etc. - and that includes our children. We could choose to not bring this additional evil into the world by, say, getting ourselves sterilized. Thus we're in the same boat as God: we know evil will occur by our bringing children into the world, and we are able to prevent this, but we don't. Yet we don't hold the parents of adults responsible for what their children choose to do.

This doesn't necessarily answer the question well enough, but it does offer a little bit of God's rationale.

[*kryogenix*]

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#cat

[sadolakced acid]

parents are not all powerful. god is.

[Mulder]

..
*looks around*
huh? this from justin, who is normally cynical and non-religious?

*gasp*

anyways, free will is an interesting concept. we use it to separate ourselves from barbarism. does it really make us better though? we murder each other, are hateful...and all by choice.

maybe barbarisms better, eh?

[sadolakced acid]

well, according the the bible god is all-knowing, and thus knows exactly what evils i will do. god is also all-powerful, meaning he can decide whether i do something or not. and deciding to not do anything is essentially determining the path. i can not touch the steering wheel of my car if it's going where i want. if it's not going where i want, i can turn it. but just becuase i don't touch the steering wheel doesn't mean it's not going where i intend.

same with god. just because he doens't interfere doesn't mean he's letting things run.

ergo, no free will, or no god.

[*CrackedRearView*]

well, according the the bible god is all-knowing, and thus knows exactly what evils i will do. god is also all-powerful, meaning he can decide whether i do something or not. and deciding to not do anything is essentially determining the path. i can not touch the steering wheel of my car if it's going where i want. if it's not going where i want, i can turn it. but just becuase i don't touch the steering wheel doesn't mean it's not going where i intend.

same with god. just because he doens't interfere doesn't mean he's letting things run.

ergo, no free will, or no god.

I still think you're off kilter about this subject. What you guys are misunderstanding with the Christian faith is that not everyone (hardly anyone, really) is Calvinist. You guys are assuming that if God knows our path beforehand that we're predestined to go to heaven or hell. This is incorrect. Everyone begins with a blank slate, and everyone chooses what they're going to do; just because God knows what's going to happen, doesn't mean He creates us in this fashion. He doesn't necessarily predestine us to heaven or hell, He simply knows which path we're going to take. Again, if there were no evil in the world, how could we measure good?

EDIT// I'm really just trying to play the devil's advocate here. I'm just sparking debate and new ideas, I really think this is a confusing subject, too. I'm just not as determined as some of those in this thread that refuse to believe there is either a God or free will. I'm looking for any way to show that it's possible.

[sadolakced acid]

what i'm saying is if god is all knowing and all powerful, there is no free will.

1- he is all knowing and knows who is going to go to heaven and hell.
2- he has the power to make people either go to heaven or hell.
3- if he doesn't change it so you go to heaven or hell, then he is deciding that you should go to where he knows you'll go, and thus he has decided for you, and you have no free will.
4- if he does change it, then no free will.

[*CrackedRearView*]

what i'm saying is if god is all knowing and all powerful, there is no free will.

1- he is all knowing and knows who is going to go to heaven and hell.
2- he has the power to make people either go to heaven or hell.
3- if he doesn't change it so you go to heaven or hell, then he is deciding that you should go to where he knows you'll go, and thus he has decided for you, and you have no free will.
4- if he does change it, then no free will.

No. Still no. He's not going to urge people in one direction...He may know that you're going to end up in heaven or hell but that has no bearing on whether you had the free will to get to either one you chose. He set the standards for getting into heaven; whether someone leads a life in the correct fashion to arrive there or not is the question. You're incorrect in your third statement where you say this:

if he doesn't change it so you go to heaven or hell, then he is deciding that you should go to where he knows you'll go, and thus he has decided for you, and you have no free will.

The only thing He decided to do was put the person on the earth. What proof do you have that people don't start with a tabula rasa and make their own choices? So what if He knows what you'll do?

EDIT// Again, He doesn't predestine you simply by knowing what you're going to do.

[illumineering]

Latent knowledge does not interfere with choice as it does not inherently effect causation. This issue presents no fundamental problem. As long as God does not influence individual choice, free will remains.

[sadolakced acid]

i don't think i'm doing a good job of explaining this...

let's try again.

if you know something's about to fall, and you have the power to stop it from falling, and choose not to, you have actively decided its fate even though you have done nothing.

maybe a specifc example will do better.

god knows faustus will go to hell. god has the power to stop faustus from going to hell. god chooses not to stop faustus from going to hell, and thus decides faustus's fate.

the logic is: god has a choice to make, and if he chooses one way, faustus will go to hell. if he chooses the other way, faustus will go to heaven. therefore, when god chooses, he seals faustus's fate. faustus has no free will, because after god has decided, nothing faustus can do will save him. if something could, god would not be all-knowing.

an all-knowing and all-powerful god cannot exist in conjuntion with free will. an all-knowing god, sure. an all-powerful god, sure. but not one that's both at once.

[NoSex]

Latent knowledge does not interfere with choice as it does not inherently effect causation. This issue presents no fundamental problem. As long as God does not influence individual choice, free will remains.

That's the problem. When the issue is pushed it reaches a point of absurdity where the definition of a christian God implodes in on itself. Given the premise that God is all knowing, analytically we can not have free will. The issue is that choice is simply an illusion, there is no interference because there was no choice in the first place. Since there is no individual choice in the first place, God can't even begin to influence "it."

The bigger issue is that, what you are saying makes sense. But, when you add the definition of God to the equation, it becomes a contradiction. This individual choice disapears in the face of God's omniscience. It only goes to highlight the meaninglessness and incoherency of the christian God. To develope the argument further, I will demonstrate what I mean exactly.

A1:
1 (p1). Free will is the ability to voluntarily choose.
2 (p2). Choice is the ability to decide among a varitety of options.
3 (p3). There must be at least two options for a choice to be present.
4 (p4). There must be a choice for there to be free will.
5 (c1). Therefor, there must be more than two possible options to choose from for there to be free will.

A2:
1 (p1). God is a perfectly omniscient being.
2 (p2). Men exist.
3 (p3). Men are active.
4 (c2). Because of God's omnisience, God has perfect foreknowledge of the activity of men.

A3:
1 (p1). A man does X.
2 (c2). Because of God's omniscience, God knows that the man will do X.
3 (c1). Free will requires that the man could have done otherwise.
4 (p2). If the man would have done otherwise, it would have made God wrong (imperfect).
5 (p3). It is impossible to make God imperfect or wrong.
6 (c3). Therefor, it would have been impossible for the man to have done otherwise.

A4:
1 (c1). There must be more than two options to choose from for there to be free will.
2 (c2). God knows that man will always do X.
3 (c3). Since God knows man will always do X, he has no other option aside from X.
4 (c4). Since man has no other option aside from X, he fails to have free will.

That was very messy, I must admit. But to put it neatly:
By definition of the terms we are dealing with, men can not have free will given that God is omniscient. Free will requires that we have a choice. Choice requires that we have options. If God has perfect foreknowledge of the activity of men, we can not do anything other than what God knows, because it would be impossible to make God wrong. This creates the illusion of choice. Imagine two "options." Imagine two doors.

(D1) (D2)

Before us we appear to have two options and a free choice between them. If God did not know before hand that we would move into D1 then that would be true. However, God does know that we are going to into D1, so D2 fails to remain and option, because it would be impossible to take D2. To take D2 would mean to make God false, and this is a power we do not have. Because of this, it is an impossibility. And, since it is an impossibility, it can not be an option.

Now, this is what the model looks like:

(D1)

The only "option" is D1. Since there is not a variety of options, there is no choice, and since there is no choice there is no Free Will. It is an entirely analytical argument and can not be refuted unless, of course, someone could demonstrate how it would be possible to take D2 or why there is more than one option.

This doesn't have anything to do with predestination. This has nothing to do with Calvinism. This has nothing to do with Heaven or Hell or even omnipotence. In the end, it's just about the definitions of God, and the meaning behind free will and choice. This is about the implications of God's perfect foreknowledge on the analytical framework of a logical sentence. Because to say, under all of these definitions and concepts, that we can still have fee will under an omniscient God makes no sense.

[slut]

i took a shit on the playground slide.

[*CrackedRearView*]

^

[*disco infiltrator*]

i took a shit on the playground slide.

Please don't spam.

[*kryogenix*]

god knows faustus will go to hell. god has the power to stop faustus from going to hell. god chooses not to stop faustus from going to hell, and thus decides faustus's fate.

Bad arguement. If I knew you were going to the grocery store, and had the power to stop you via giving you a flat tire or some other way, but I chose not to, does that mean I have partially decided your fate?

If someone had a gun, but chose not to shoot at someone, did that person decide the other person's fate, thus taking away free will?

[sadolakced acid]

Bad arguement. If I knew you were going to the grocery store, and had the power to stop you via giving you a flat tire or some other way, but I chose not to, does that mean I have partially decided your fate?

If someone had a gun, but chose not to shoot at someone, did that person decide the other person's fate, thus taking away free will?

but you are not all powerful. if you decide not to shoot me, someone else might still.

if god decides something, it's that. there's no possibility of something else happening, because he's allpowerful.

which is why i'm saying an all-powerful and all-knowing god precludes free-will.

[flc]

i took a shit on the playground slide.

Lol.

I'm not all that religious, but like I said before, free will just simply means that you make the decision yourself; no one else is making it for you.

I don't see what someone knowing about it has to do with anything.

It's like saying you didn't have the free will to pick your favorite color of shoes because your friend figured you would pick that color anyway. Just because she knows your personality and knew you'd probably go with the blue instead of the red, does that mean she's deciding your fate? Not really.

I do think that "free will" is a bunch of crap anyway, though. I don't think it's fair for God to let us do whatever and then we get punished for it. It's like parents who let their kids do whatever they want and then yell at them when they get home too late.

[*disco infiltrator*]

It's fine if he knows AFTER the event happens; that would make sense. But, God supposedly knows your entire existence before anything happens to you. If he knows exactly what's going to happen to you and it's all a part of your plan, where does the free will come in? You can't change anything in God's plan.

[flc]

{ sigh }

I don't really see this debate going much farther..I'll keep saying that free will is about YOU making the decision, and you'll keep saying that there's no free will if God knows the future.

So whatever.

[NoSex]

{ sigh }

I don't really see this debate going much farther..I'll keep saying that free will is about YOU making the decision, and you'll keep saying that there's no free will if God knows the future.

So whatever.

Read my argument at the top of this page. It seems like you havn't read it yet.

[sadolakced acid]

yes, the whole "i can still choose even though my friend knows what i will choose" thing will work. except your friend isn't all powerful or all knowing.

god is.

[*kryogenix*]

I suppose I'll post the link again, since people have ignored it.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#cat

[flc]

I'm still a little confused, Nate. I understand completely what your basic stance was at the top of the page, but why does there have to be more than two options for there to be free will? Shouldn't there be free will to pick between door 1 and door 2?

[racoons > you]

Your point seemed obvious enough to me.

well,yeah, obviously.

but your response didnt fit...

two of the stipulations nate pointed out were omniscience and omnipotence. i was saying the two can cancel themselves out.

saying ther could be a god, but we dont have free wilkl didnt make sense to me as a repsonse to the whole post

[*CrackedRearView*]

I still don't get the reasoning behind the argument. Let's say you wanted to go outside and stand on your head in the rain while singing "Afternoon Delight". This is obviously something that I doubt anyone has done, but if you wanted to do it, you could. You're saying that, "analytically", if God knows you're going to go do this foolish thing, you didn't make the choice?

That makes such vague and completely stupid sense.

[flc]

You're saying that, "analytically", if God knows you're going to go do this foolish thing, you didn't make the choice?

Yeah, I think that's basically what they're saying. They're saying that God already has a path led out for you so there's no way you can stray.

But you know, it also makes me wonder..what if God knows a basic plan of our lives, not every little detail? Like, what if he knows that you will go to a certain place, but he doesn't necessarily know that you will take door number 1? Kind of a stupid arguement..nevermind.

[Spirited Away]

I suppose I'll post the link again, since people have ignored it.

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06259a.htm#cat

And people will continue to ignore it if you don't summarize it.






Oh yea, I saw this on Wiki, thought it interesting, and was wondering if someone, preferably a Christian will answer it.
"Assuming that an individual had no choice in who, when and where to come into being: How are the choices of existence determined by what he is?" [wikipedia]

[*disco infiltrator*]

I read your signature. <3Fae.

Yeah, I think that's basically what they're saying. They're saying that God already has a path led out for you so there's no way you can stray.

But you know, it also makes me wonder..what if God knows a basic plan of our lives, not every little detail? Like, what if he knows that you will go to a certain place, but he doesn't necessarily know that you will take door number 1? Kind of a stupid arguement..nevermind.

That wouldn't make him omniscient, would it?

[*I Shot JFK*]

I read your signature. <3Fae.
That wouldn't make him omniscient, would it?

well not necessarily...

just because you ARE something, doesnt mean you have to employ it all the time...

just because im not bending over backwards at the moment doesnt mean imnot flexible, for instance

[flc]

well not necessarily...

just because you ARE something, doesnt mean you have to employ it all the time...

just because im not bending over backwards at the moment doesnt mean imnot flexible, for instance

Yeah, I think that's what I meant.

[*disco infiltrator*]

But knowledge isn't something you can choose to turn on and off. If you know something, you know something. I know the quadratic formula; I can not use it for a really long time and forget it, but that's not my choice of when to forget it, and I'd still know it if someone jogged my memory.

[sillakilla220]

this argument makes me smile, such lame arguments... why do u rely on articles and online encyclopedias to make your point?

[Spirited Away]

this argument makes me smile, such lame arguments... why do u rely on articles and online encyclopedias to make your point?

How do you write an argument involving facts, or debunk a widely accepted belief without any source to back up your claims when one is needed? If people just pull statistics or a claim of truth out of their ass, no one's going to think their argument's credible. And then there's the problem that your stance on the topic has already been argued/explained for. What's the point of rewriting that same argument when it hasn't been refuted?

[*mipadi*]

this argument makes me smile, such lame arguments... why do u rely on articles and online encyclopedias to make your point?

Arguments are built on supporting arguments.

If you have a better argument, by all means, go ahead and introduce it.

[flc]

this argument makes me smile, such lame arguments... why do u rely on articles and online encyclopedias to make your point?

Pretty much what they said. ^

And I think it's pretty lame too to just come in a debate complaining about how lame the arguements are when you yourself have nothing new to offer.

[*kryogenix*]

And people will continue to ignore it if you don't summarize it.

I don't think a short summary will do this topic justice, but I'll give it a shot.

God exists outside of time. Knowledge of an outcome has no effect on the outcome. Say you could travel in time and find out the outcome of a sporting event, and return to the present. Would this change the outcome?

Oh yea, I saw this on Wiki, thought it interesting, and was wondering if someone, preferably a Christian will answer it.
"Assuming that an individual had no choice in who, when and where to come into being: How are the choices of existence determined by what he is?" [wikipedia]

I don't know if I'm the person to ask, since Catholics don't believe in predestination in the sense that no one is predestined for hell.

[sillakilla220]

cuz with a subject like this there arent facts. its purely opinion. so if you pull up an article written by some dude, it doesn't prove anything really its just wat that one guy thought about it. its completely subjective

[*chaneun*]

cuz with a subject like this there arent facts. its purely opinion. so if you pull up an article written by some dude, it doesn't prove anything really its just wat that one guy thought about it. its completely subjective

Well they have the choice whether they want to debate about this subject or not.

[Spirited Away]

cuz with a subject like this there arent facts. its purely opinion. so if you pull up an article written by some dude, it doesn't prove anything really its just wat that one guy thought about it. its completely subjective

Opinions can be based on facts. If people have sources that back up their claims, why shouldn't they post the source? It does prove something when the source is relevant to the argument.

[Yemmerz]

I think someone was using the paper plane example.

So it's supposed to work out like this. You the paper plane, choose where to go. Then God is the reality of it all, and knows that you're going to end up on the ground.

The whole idea of free will is based upon the idea that you are keeping God's teachings in your soul as you make your decisions in life.

[NoSex]

I still don't get the reasoning behind the argument. Let's say you wanted to go outside and stand on your head in the rain while singing "Afternoon Delight". This is obviously something that I doubt anyone has done, but if you wanted to do it, you could. You're saying that, "analytically", if God knows you're going to go do this foolish thing, you didn't make the choice?

That makes such vague and completely stupid sense.

Have you read my full argument at the top of page 3?
If not, I highly suggest you do so.

Because, the issue we are dealing with is incompatible properties, it is neither vague nor "completely stupid." The analytical argument I have presented shows why the two situations negate each other and are an inherent contradiction. The argument tells us that if properties are incompatible, not both can be true. It woulld be like saying P ∧ ¬P (You are both dead and not dead!).

[*CrackedRearView*]

^

I still think the logic is a bit restrictive and skewed. Your argument states that a man will choose X, and God knows that. It then moves to say that because God knows the man will choose X, he can't choose Y because that will defy God's omniscience, making him imperfect. And because man needs two choices or more in order to have free will, God's omniscience cancels this.

What I don't understand is where you assume that God's omniscience prevents a man from choosing Y over X. I don't understand where your argument proves that a person didn't have the choice to pick between X and Y. Where do you reasonably show that God's omniscience prevents our ability to choose? Where do you reasonably prove that we start with a blank slate and God simply knows the path we'll take; the choice we'll make out of several thousand choices over our lifespans?

Call me ignorant and thickheaded, but I don't get the logic.

[NoSex]

^

I still think the logic is a bit restrictive and skewed. Your argument states that a man will choose X, and God knows that. It then moves to say that because God knows the man will choose X, he can't choose Y because that will defy God's omniscience, making him imperfect. And because man needs two choices or more in order to have free will, God's omniscience cancels this.

What I don't understand is where you assume that God's omniscience prevents a man from choosing Y over X. I don't understand where your argument proves that a person didn't have the choice to pick between X and Y. Where do you reasonably show that God's omniscience prevents our ability to choose? Where do you reasonably prove that we start with a blank slate and God simply knows the path we'll take; the choice we'll make out of several thousand choices over our lifespans?

Call me ignorant and thickheaded, but I don't get the logic.

All my argument does is make clear the contradiction. If only one option is available, there is no choice in the matter, and thus no free will. All my argument does is to show that there is only one option, and no chance to do otherwise.

God's omniscience "prevents" man from choosing Y because God knows that the man will "choose" X. The man could not choose Y, because Y is an impossibility given that God is omniscient. How could you choose against the perfect and ultimate foreknowledge of God? So, Y isn't a real option because it is an impossibility. Given that there are no other options left but X, how can man have a choice? How can man have free will if he doesn't have the power to choose? How can he have free will without at least two options?

The basic contradiction is this:
Free Will requires options and a choice between options.
God's omniscience does not allow the possibility of multiple of options, thus not allowing the possibility of choice. Essentially, how can you freely choose to do anything if it is already true that you must do X?

[sillakilla220]

god knowin our path doesnt prove our lives are determined it just proves god is all-knowing. if god is as great as he is claimed to be it would only make sense that he knows how our lives will play out. it doesnt mean its already pre-determined, it just means that b/c god knows everything, that includes wat we do before we do it.

[NoSex]

god knowin our path doesnt prove our lives are determined it just proves god is all-knowing. if god is as great as he is claimed to be it would only make sense that he knows how our lives will play out. it doesnt mean its already pre-determined, it just means that b/c god knows everything, that includes wat we do before we do it.

The problem is that free will and the idea of a perfect omniscient God contradict each other.
We can't make these choices because we have no options in the matter because of God's ultimate foreknowledge. To make a choice, we need options. How can we have options when it would be impossible to do anything other than what God understands and knows to be true?

[sillakilla220]

u still have options.

[*CrackedRearView*]

God's omniscience "prevents" man from choosing Y because God knows that the man will "choose" X. The man could not choose Y, because Y is an impossibility given that God is omniscient. How could you choose against the perfect and ultimate foreknowledge of God? So, Y isn't a real option because it is an impossibility. Given that there are no other options left but X, how can man have a choice? How can man have free will if he doesn't have the power to choose? How can he have free will without at least two options?

Say that there are 25 other options beyond X, from A to Z. Person A is going to weigh all these options and choose X, right? God knows that person A will do this, but leaves the person unbridled to make the decision. Person B, however, prefers to make choice Y, person C, choice D, person D, choice W, and so on. I still don't comprehend why God's knowledge of what we will choose precludes the fact that we're making the choice. You say that to choose Y over X would be to choose over God's perfect knowledge. To the contrary, I present the question:

Where does your logic show that we aren't choosing against A, B, C, etc?

[NoSex]

u still have options.

Argumentum ad nauseam.

Say that there are 25 other options beyond X, from A to Z. Person A is going to weigh all these options and choose X, right?

Wrong. The person doesn't have the power to choose because he has no option but to follow X.
My argument proves that we have no options. Unless you can prove somehow that we can indeed choose against the knowledge of God, there is only one path anyone can follow, and that is the path of God's ultimate foreknowledge. Now, knowing that God's foreknowledge exists temporally prior to the activity of men, my argument is analytically true.

It doesn't matter how many "options" you consider, a million or two, the result is all the same. God knows the activity of men, and men do not have the choice to do anything other than what God knows. I don't think you understand my argument. And, as far as I can tell, you don't have an argument, you're just fighting an ad nauseam. You keep saying man has free will, but you're not telling me why. I'm saying men do not have free will, and I'm telling you exactly why.

Let me ask you this: Do you believe than man needs at least two options, whatever those options may be, to have a choice, and thus have free will?

[*mipadi*]

It's an interesting coincidence that I am in the middle of a book that tangentially deals with this issue. I'm reading Neal Stephenson's Quicksilver. There happens to be a discussion between the main character, Daniel Waterhouse, and Dr. Gottfried Liebniz, the German mathematician/logician, on this issue. There are a couple interesting passages from the book:

"You could as well have asked: are we thinking? Or merely reflecting God's genius?"

"Suppose I had asked it, Doctor—what would your answer be?"

"My answer, sir, is both."

"Both? But that's impossible. It has to be one or the other."

"I do not agree with you, Mr. Waterhouse."

"If we are mere mechanisms, obeying rules laid down by God, then all of our actions are predestined, and we are not really thinking."

– Neal Stephenson, Quicksilver (278-9)

Waterhouse and Liebniz meet later, and Liebniz describes his belief that a living thing, such as a human, is imbued, by his Creator, with cogitatio, which is a sort of "spirit" that represents information and thought. (My description is crude; it's best to read the book, if possible, to get the full idea—see pp. 297-301.) The discussion continues:

"What is your hypothesis, Doctor?"

"Like two arms of a snowflake, Mind and Matter grew out of a common center—and even though they grew independently and without communicating—each developing according to its own internal rules—nevertheless they grew in perfect harmony, and share the same shape and structure."

"It is rather Metaphysickal," was all Daniel could come back with. "What's the common center? God?"

"God arranged things from the beginning so that Mind could understand Nature. But He did not do this by continual meddling in the development of Mind, and the unfolding of the Universe…rather He fashioned the nature of both Mind and Nature to be harmonious from the beginning."

"So, I have complete freedom of action…but God knows in advance what I will do, because it is my nature to act in harmony with the world, and God partakes of that harmony."

"Yes."

– Neal Stephenson, Quicksilver (299-300)

[*CrackedRearView*]

My argument proves that we have no options. Unless you can prove somehow that we can indeed choose against the knowledge of God, there is only one path anyone can follow, and that is the path of God's ultimate foreknowledge. Now, knowing that God's foreknowledge exists temporally prior to the activity of men, my argument is analytically true.

Still, I feel that you're twisting this for interpretive purposes. I still don't see how foreknowledge precludes free will, and why you think that we need to be able to "choose against the knowledge of God." You say this:

there is only one path anyone can follow, and that is the path of God's ultimate foreknowledge.

Yet, how can you prove that this isn't simply half true? How have you shown that there's only one ultimate result with several roads to take?

EDIT// Again, God's not making the choice, he simply knows which you'll choose. By saying that his knowledge takes away choice and freedom assumes we're predestined to everything, right?

[NoSex]

Still, I feel that you're twisting this for interpretive purposes.

How so?

I still don't see how foreknowledge precludes free will, and why you think that we need to be able to "choose against the knowledge of God."

Because if we can not choose against the knowledge of God we do not have any options. If we do not have any options, we do not have a choice. If we do not have a choice, we do not have free will.

Yet, how can you prove that this isn't simply half true? How have you shown that there's only one ultimate result with several roads to take?

Because god is omniscient, not just really bright. He knows every moment, every action, every thought. Every single piece of information and data is known my God for he is all-knowing. He knows the "ultimate" result as well as the "roads" that will be taken. If this is not true, we should not call him omniscient.

Note also that God's omniscience is one of the leading premises. I'm disproving an omnisicent God existing during the same time as a free willed humanity. Not anything else.

EDIT// Again, God's not making the choice, he simply knows which you'll choose. By saying that his knowledge takes away choice and freedom assumes we're predestined to everything, right?

In a sort of way. But, not precisely. All my argument is in place to do is reveal a contradiction in terms. That is it. I do not attempt to hypothesis a mover or a predestination. I only intend to disprove man as his own free mover.

You ignored my question from before:

Let me ask you this: Do you believe than man needs at least two options, whatever those options may be, to have a choice, and thus have free will?

[*CrackedRearView*]

Let me ask you this: Do you believe than man needs at least two options, whatever those options may be, to have a choice, and thus have free will?

Yes, but I still don't see how God's foreknowledge precludes the fact that we have more than two choices.

[NoSex]

Yes, but I still don't see how God's foreknowledge precludes the fact that we have more than two choices.

Alright.
God has perfect foreknowledge, which exists before man even exists. Before the moment of any choice is ever made, God knows what will happen. God is perfect and all-knowing. If what he understands to be true does not happen, he would no longer be God. For his perfect foreknowledge to be denied would be impossible. God knows all the activities of man. Anything other than what God knows fails to be an actual option because it is an impossibility. It is an impossibility because it would make God wrong. So, men must "conform" to God's perfect foreknowledge and omnisicence. We have nothing but one single option, and that is what God knows.

Without any other option but that, we have no choice, and no free will.

If you still believe I am mistaken, answer me this:
If we truly do have more than one option and a choice in the matter, despire God's omniscience, do we have the ability to choose any path? If so, how are all these pathes possibilities and options, if they would make God wrong?

[*I Shot JFK*]

But knowledge isn't something you can choose to turn on and off. If you know something, you know something. I know the quadratic formula; I can not use it for a really long time and forget it, but that's not my choice of when to forget it, and I'd still know it if someone jogged my memory.

well that's just silly.

of course knowledge is something god can turn offf. he's omnipotent.

[*disco infiltrator*]

It doesn't matter; no matter how much power you have over everything, you can't make yourself un-know something. You'll know it right after you do anyway if you're also omniscient.

[NoSex]

It doesn't matter; no matter how much power you have over everything, you can't make yourself un-know something. You'll know it right after you do anyway if you're also omniscient.

Well, if you were truly omnipotent you would have to have the power to make yourself "un-know something". But, then the issue is, isn't God also known as omniscient? So, if he is all-powerful and all-knowing, does he have the power to make himself no longer omnisicent by "un-knowing" any kind of information? If so, would he no fail to be God as he would fail to be omniscient? And, if you say no, does he not fail his omnipotence?

It's quite closely related to the question, "Could God create a boulder so heavy that he himself could not lift it?"

Although, that's not directly related to this topic, despite that they both demonstrate uses of incompatible properties argument and the Law of Non-Contradiction.

[*I Shot JFK*]

It doesn't matter; no matter how much power you have over everything, you can't make yourself un-know something. You'll know it right after you do anyway if you're also omniscient.

now, i know your smart, but you dont seem to get this. do you actually understand the concept of being OMNIPOTENT? as in CAN DO ANYTHING?

Well, if you were truly omnipotent you would have to have the power to make yourself "un-know something". But, then the issue is, isn't God also known as omniscient? So, if he is all-powerful and all-knowing, does he have the power to make himself no longer omnisicent by "un-knowing" any kind of information? If so, would he no fail to be God as he would fail to be omniscient? And, if you say no, does he not fail his omnipotence?

It's quite closely related to the question, "Could God create a boulder so heavy that he himself could not lift it?"

Although, that's not directly related to this topic, despite that they both demonstrate uses of incompatible properties argument and the Law of Non-Contradiction.

that was the problem i was trying to adress when i spoek about turning off his omniscience. i agree that the two ideas contradict one another. for me, that makes the christian concept of god unsustainable

[*disco infiltrator*]

Well yea, that was my point...you can't make yourself not know something then know it anyway....yea.

[NoSex]

Say you could travel in time and find out the outcome of a sporting event, and return to the present. Would this change the outcome?

Ultimate foreknowledge is not equal to simple foreknowledge. It's a false analogy. Also, you seem to miss the point.

Change the outcome? I'm not saying God is changing any outcomes. I'm saying that God's omniscience and perfect foreknowledge prohibit the existence of a free willed man. These concepts and ideas conflict and deny the law of contradiction.

How can we have a free choice in a matter in which we have no options?
How could we have options given that we can only act in accordance to God's foreknowledge?

[*disco infiltrator*]

Like, knowing that a certain team won wouldn't change the outcome, but it obviously couldn't be the other team winning since you already know the first team's going to win. It can't be any other way.