Mark Quayle said:
Well, yes, I can, if 'free will' goes by the adjective, "uncaused". Nothing happens uncaused, except God. Everything that is —except God— is so because it was caused to become so.
I agree it is opinion, as is everything philosophy and science uses for proof. It assumes that God is the only uncaused thing. But if you can show me how there is anything else uncaused, be my guest.
Second, as a believer in Scripture, it is my assumption that Scripture is true. And as Scriptures present an omniscient God, then he knows everything. Likewise, good reasoning shows God as the uncaused causer, the 'first cause', and, as I assume, to say that there can be more than one first cause is to contradict the meaning of "first cause".
I am not disputing that within our reality, God is the cause of everything. What I am saying is that if God caused all, then having omniscience automatically precludes true choice for anything that is caused, human or otherwise. My choice is an illusion. God created me a certain way, in an environment unique to me, knowing how I would respond and every choice that I would ever make. Therefore, with that logic, Adam and Eve had no choice but to sin; the serpent had no choice but to deceive, and man had no choice but to (for the most part) reject God, because of how they were created, how they were taught, and their life experiences.
I'm sorry. I don't follow. "...implies otherwise."? You provided scripture that implies that you do NOT believe that God is not omniscient? Or are you saying that
@FutureAndAHope (and you) provided scripture that demonstrates that God is not omniscient? If I remember
@FutureAndAHope right, he would take issue with the notion that God is not omniscient.
As for what you ask me to do, (and I could make your point better than you do—God even 'repents of' what he did, and 'changes his mind' about what he was going to do, according to the translations. He also says that 'it never entered my mind that they should do that'.) Several logical rules apply to hermeneutics and produce good exegesis. To take verses out of context, for example, is not a good hermeneutic. And to assume that a modern day reading of the English is all that is necessary for understanding a statement in scripture, is not exegesis. All Scripture agrees with itself. Therefore, the 'whole counsel of God' is to be brought to bear when drawing meaning and doctrine from a verse. If the Bible says, "God is not a man....that he should change his mind." and in another place, "God changed his mind", there is
The "impossible to lie" quote was a hyperbole to show how the raw meaning of the word itself (omnipotence or omniscience) is technically an oxymoron.
As far as translated scriptures go, certain things obviously need to be interpreted, otherwise raw readings look like contradictions.
Genesis 6:6,7 & 1 Samuel 15:11,35 - God regrets his own actions. But in the same chapter in Samuel (1 Samuel 15:29) which you quoted, God is not a man that he should have regret. (ESV) or that he should repent (KJV) or change his mind (NIV). So obviously there is some kind of interpretation or translation issue. But the fact remains that God anointed three different individuals to be king over Israel, and only one remained faithful. (Saul & David through Samuel, and Jeroboam through Ahijah) Not a great record if you are omniscient or know ahead of time what your chosen appointees will do. In fact, Jeroboam almost immediately rebelled and not a single king of Israel from that point were faithful. (except partially Jehu)
I'm not suggesting that God doesn't know or see or have some kind of supernatural ability to see the future. I just don't follow the logic that God doesn't have a choice to decide what to foresee, in order to prevent his creation from being a mere simulation.
Mark Quayle said:
So that they are without excuse. And so that we would know that they had no excuse.
On the contrary. If God caused that I sin, it is by use of my [willed] choices. We know that it is logically self-contradictory to say that God can sin, (because God does nothing against himself, and sin is against God.) Likewise, Scripture says that God tempts nobody. So sin comes, just as James says, from our lusts. Follow that line of causation all the way back. There is God. He does not tempt, and he does not sin. We do. Satan does. Our lusts do. And the whole of creation was caused by God to exist. You can't escape that, except by ignoring it, or by claiming that God is less than omnipotent.
If God caused everything and knows everything, then I have no will, period. If it is self-contradictory to say that God can sin (which I agree with), then he can't possibly have pre-conceived that Adam and Eve and the serpent and Satan would sin, because then, as you say, God would be sinning against himself through Adam and Eve, and is furthermore responsible for everything Satan would do.
If your existence is caused, your choices are caused. Your choices are your own, and are caused.
This sentence is self-contradictory. Your choices are not your own if they are caused by someone else.
You have a will. A robot does not. Your will is to do according to your inclinations. You will always choose to do what you most want to do at that instant of choosing. Why do you have that inclination? Why do you want to choose what you choose? These things don't happen in a vacuum. You could not have chosen anything if you had not woken up to see the options. What caused you to wake up? How do you have any thoughts? Are these things entirely spontaneous? No, they are causes of effects and they in turn are effects of earlier causes. Your options are not illusions, but it will only ever be possible to choose what you end up choosing. And you don't know which one that is until you choose. Can you demonstrate that all options on the table are possible to choose? It is human to see them that way, but in the end, only the one is ever chosen, as history consistently demonstrates. And the whole scenario is God's. It doesn't happen by itself, but is established by God, in whom we live and breath and have our existence.
You are missing the point. Whatever reason I may have to choose what I have chosen to do is caused by God, as you say, whether that is by influencing my brain waves now, or by just allowing it to develop through history from some initial quantum wave of creation. The sticking point is whether at the point of creation God already knew that I would exist and what I would do thousands or billions of years later. (Depending on whether you are a young earth or old earth creationist) And omniscience means God did know, and therefore my choices are not mine after all.
You attempt to show a logical self-contradiction with your syllogism built on the premise "God cannot create a creature with free choice". The premise is faulty—the statement is bogus. It is not that God cannot do it, but that the whole notion is logically self-contradictory. Would you say that the statement, "God cannot create a rock too big for him to pick up." is a valid statement? It is utter foolishness. Why would God even consider such a thing? He would not. It is not even a thing, but oxymoronic self-contradiction.
But I didn't say that or believe that. You don't maybe see it that way, but that is your position. I believe that God can create a creature with free choice, that we all have free choice, and God wants us to have free choice. (the word choice here being synonymous with will) I also believe that despite our free choice, prophecies can still exist, because despite what we do in our lives, it will not affect prophecy or God's will, so peering into our choices is not relevant. And if our actions did or was going to affect God's will, then God would intervene as he did in so many parts of the Bible.
Furthermore, God taking an initiative to help a single individual in distress who prays for help will also not generally affect prophecy. So individually God can guide us, and on a macro scale he can fulfill his prophecies without contradiction.
www.ncregister.com
