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.

[*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?

[*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?

[*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?