How can omniscience & omnipotence be compatible with free will?

[elopez]

What part of "[/color]There is no choice if God already knows the future" was not clear to you? You question is nonsense because there is no choice in a universe where infallible foreknowledge exists.

Oh it's clear, what I'm saying is it doesn't make sense. What part of that is not clear for you? Again, infallibility is not in dispute. What is in dispute is the coherence of the claim, "there is no choice if God already knows the future." I am sure you can follow this much....

What part of "[/color]Wrong. I've already explained why this is wrong. Go back and re-read my argument, because it apparently did not sink in the first time.

Look at you being all arrogant and self declaring. Your explanation was weak. There is no need to re-read anything. Again, your argument is understood, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to which it doesn't.

What part of "[/color]That's precisely what it means, in fact. In order for real choice to exist, there must exist multiple real future possibilities. However, if more than one future were legitimately possible, then it means God's knowledge could be wrong, which is incompatible with infallible foreknowledge. Therefore either choice does not exist or infallible foreknowledge doesn't exist. You can't have both.

That's what you would like for it to mean. You haven't shown that's what it means at all. All you are going to do is sit here and repeat this one statement, "In order for real choice to exist, there must exist multiple real future possibilities," over and over without actually showing that multiple possibilities must exist in order for there to be real choice. If choice A and A1 is presented to me, both possibilities still exist, it just that I do not want to engage in A1 but A. That is what God foreknows -- how I act. Thus choice does exist with infallible foreknowledge.

It is clear from this statement that you do not understand what my argument is saying. I've never suggested that events themselves are illusions. I've suggested that the appearance of choices are false appearance. To repeat myself: If God knows infallibly that I will do A, then it is impossible for me to do A' or A'' (these are alternatives to A which I might have had the choice of had it not been known that A was and must be the future). If God allegedly knows I will do A, then I cannot "choose" A' or A''. I do not have a choice.

And from this statement it is clear that you have no idea what I'm saying. I'm saying I understand your argument, but that it does not make any sense. I am saying disagree with your argument. Do you know what disagree means? If the events are not illusions then the choice that resulted in those events are not illusions, either.

Again, what God foreknows is what we choose to do. Your choice is in A as that would be your desire. The desire is real, not an illusion. That makes your choice real.

We are not creators of the universe, but God is. I ALREADY MADE THAT ARGUMENT.You need to spend less time typing and more time digesting the arguments I present you.

I never said we are creators of the universe, nor does this analogy imply that, so this says nothing to refute the analogy. It's meant to show that as by the way of looking into the crystal ball we do not cause what is looked at to happen, what happens happens because of the people who make it happen. I think you need to spend more time comprehending my arguments, an refuting them as this is completely random.

SO WHAT??? We're talking about GOD here, genius. Unless you have some uncannily unique god-concept that does not describe god as being creator of the universe, then this point is utterly irrelevant.

It's actually very relevant as it shows how the choice is real and what you're saying bears no sense about the choice not being real.

Yes He does. He created them the instant He created the universe and knew them.

Not everything God foreknew was created in the first instant, just the beginnings of the universe. I am not sure what is so difficult about that??

Again, irrelevant.

It's irrelevant if you want to ignore your earlier argument of why choice cannot be real, sure.

THERE IS NO CHOICE. How can I make this any more clear to you? If God knows that tomorrow I will wake up at 7:30, then I can't choose to sleep in to 8:00 or else God's knowledge would be wrong. Do you see that, Poindexter?

You can make it clear by ceasing to be redundant and circular and actually supporting the notion that choosing to sleep in to 8 is essential to real choice or free will. If I wake up at 7:30 it is because I choose to wake up then based on some desire that requires me to wake up then, and that is what God foreknows. God foreknows what I choose, what I do, how I act. It doesn't mean I cannot choose or that there is no choice.

What does that have to do with God, seeing as how he actually is a creator and a foreknower?

Again everything God foreknows is not created by God. God knows I choose A, but He does not 'create' A in the same way He would have with earth or the universe x.

If everything is known simultaneously, then all events must exist simultaneously.

Again this depends on what you mean by 'exist.' The events do not 'exist' as a reality when foreknown but 'exists' conceptually for God from eternity.

It must in order for God to know it.

Not for God to foreknow of it, no. Foreknowledge is knowledge of the event before it happens. If God creates universe x and event A is not, till say now, then from the beginning of the universe the event foreknown does not actually exist but conceptually exists.

There is no difference when everything is already known. The universe is just one long video tape. The whole movie exists at the same time on the same cassette, even if you only look at one part of it at a time.

There is a difference. What God knows will happen is before it will happen, so when it happens is different from when it is known. The difference is plenty obvious.

 

[:æ:]

Oh it's clear, what I'm saying is it doesn't make sense.

Saying it is one thing. Showing it is another. I have demonstrated my point with adequate examples. You've done nothing but offer assertions.

Look at you being all arrogant and self declaring. Your explanation was weak. There is no need to re-read anything. Again, your argument is understood, but that doesn't mean it makes sense to which it doesn't.

So you say, but have yet to demonstrate.

That's what you would like for it to mean. You haven't shown that's what it means at all.

Patently false claim.

All you are going to do is sit here and repeat this one statement, "

In order for real choice to exist, there must exist multiple real future possibilities," over and over without actually showing that multiple possibilities must exist in order for there to be real choice. If choice A and A1 is presented to me, both possibilities still exist, it just that I do not want to engage in A1 but A. That is what God foreknows -- how I act. Thus choice does exist with infallible foreknowledge.

AS I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED, A1 is not possible if God knows infallibly that you will do A. If A1 were possible then God's knowledge of A is possibly wrong, which is inconsistent. You need to explain how A1 can be possible while God infallibly knows A.

And from this statement it is clear that you have no idea what I'm saying. I'm saying I understand your argument, but that it does not make any sense. I am saying disagree with your argument. Do you know what disagree means? If the events are not illusions then the choice that resulted in those events are not illusions, either.

You apparently do not understand that A, B and C are discrete events whereas A, A' and A'' are multiple hypothetical probabilities for event A.

Again, what God foreknows is what we choose to do. Your choice is in A as that would be your desire. The desire is real, not an illusion. That makes your choice real.

Bare assertions which are false according to the arguments I've supplied and remain unrefuted by you. Denials are not refutations.

I never said we are creators of the universe, nor does this analogy imply that, so this says nothing to refute the analogy.

It directly refutes the analogy by demonstrating why it is not analogous.

It's meant to show that as by the way of looking into the crystal ball we do not cause what is looked at to happen, what happens happens because of the people who make it happen. I think you need to spend more time comprehending my arguments, an refuting them as this is completely random.

None of this is analogous to God, which is why it is irrelevant.

It's actually very relevant as it shows how the choice is real and what you're saying bears no sense about the choice not being real.

It shows nothing of the sort. As my arguments have already demonstrated, where the future is infallibly known, alternative futures are not possible. Where there exist no possible alternatives, there exists no choice.

If I knew infallibly that you would take the Ace of spades out of a deck of cards, it makes no difference if I presented you with the whole deck or only the Ace of spades. You are trying to claim that a choice exists when there is only one card that can be taken. If it were possible for a different card to be taken, then the foreknowledge could possibly be wrong. That's inconsistent with the stipulation of infallibility.

Let me ask you this: If God knows I will draw the Ace of spades from a deck of cards, can I draw the Queen of hearts? Can I draw the Jack of clubs? If you think I can, then you have admitted that God's knowledge can be wrong, which means you have been inconsistent.

Not everything God foreknew was created in the first instant, just the beginnings of the universe. I am not sure what is so difficult about that??

In order to know something, it must exist. I said that in my very first response and you've totally ignored it.

It's irrelevant if you want to ignore your earlier argument of why choice cannot be real, sure.

Nonsense. You're arbitrarily excluding a characteristic of God that is part-and-parcel of its definition. Conclusions drawn from incomplete premises are not reliable.

You can make it clear by ceasing to be redundant and circular and actually supporting the notion that choosing to sleep in to 8 is essential to real choice or free will.

Pick a different event then, if that one went over your head. If God knows that I will have Corn Flakes for breakfast, then it is not possible for me to have anything else. If it were possible, then his knowledge could possibly be wrong, and that's inconsistent. There might as well only be Corn Flakes in the cupboard. How can you call it a choice if there are no alternative possibilities?

If I wake up at 7:30 it is because I choose to wake up then based on some desire that requires me to wake up then, and that is what God foreknows. God foreknows what I choose, what I do, how I act. It doesn't mean I cannot choose or that there is no choice.

You're simply asserting that it is a choice while ignoring my arguments to the contrary.

Again everything God foreknows is not created by God.

And again, in order to know something, it must exist. You cannot know what doesn't exist. I cannot know what the greatest prime number is, for example. Not even God knows that one. Know why? It doesn't exist.

God knows I choose A, but He does not 'create' A in the same way He would have with earth or the universe x.

Assertions are not arguments, Einstein.

Again this depends on what you mean by 'exist.' The events do not 'exist' as a reality when foreknown but 'exists' conceptually for God from eternity.

Assertions are not arguments.

Not for God to foreknow of it, no. Foreknowledge is knowledge of the event before it happens. If God creates universe x and event A is not, till say now, then from the beginning of the universe the event foreknown does not actually exist but conceptually exists.

Special pleading. I repeat: in order to know something, it must exist. All your assertions to the contrary mean nothing until you can explain how it is meaningful to know something which doesn't exist. Do you know the sum of the interior angles of a square circle? Do you know any married bachelors?

There is a difference. What God knows will happen is before it will happen, so when it happens is different from when it is known.

Assertions are not arguments.

The difference is plenty obvious.

A lot of things are obvious in this discussion, just not to you.

 

[elopez]

Saying it is one thing. Showing it is another. I have demonstrated my point with adequate examples. You've done nothing but offer assertions.

I have showed it, and your examples are far from adequate. I've backed up my assertions again with the analogy of the crystal ball. I am not so sure you can tell the difference of support and asserting, though.

So you say, but have yet to demonstrate.

Your refusal to my support does not mean I did not demonstrate my point. Look yet again to the crystal ball analogy.

Patently false claim.

Not at all. So far you've only repeated what you have originally said.

AS I HAVE ALREADY EXPLAINED, A1 is not possible if God knows infallibly that you will do A. If A1 were possible then God's knowledge of A is possibly wrong, which is inconsistent. You need to explain how A1 can be possible while God infallibly knows A.

A1 cannot happen. A1 can still exist and be an option as again the two are present. I however choose A and not A1. Just because I choose a and God foreknows of that does not mean A1 did not exist.

You apparently do not understand that A, B and C are discrete events whereas A, A' and A'' are multiple hypothetical probabilities for event A.

Actually I do, hence my wording with A and A1. You do not understand I could possibly disagree with you in that A is real.

Bare assertions which are false according to the arguments I've supplied and remain unrefuted by you. Denials are not refutations.

Okay, remember when you are accusing me of not supporting my claims? Well, where is your support that these are bare and false assertions? Don't really live up to your own words when you say "saying is one thing," do you? According to foreknowledge not of what I said was false. God foreknows of our choices, and our choices are based on our desires. do you not believe our choices stem from our desires? Do you think that God would not foreknow of our choices? Explain....

It directly refutes the analogy by demonstrating why it is not analogous.

None of this is analogous to God, which is why it is irrelevant.

Then you do not comprehend the analogy. The crystal ball gives us 'foreknowledge' just like God in that we can 'see' into the future. It is not seeing the future that makes the future happen but our choices that make the future happen.

And no, that does not directly do anything but fail. Again, my analogy does not imply that we are creators of the universe or anything God created. You argue from a straw man if you want to say that.

It shows nothing of the sort. As my arguments have already demonstrated, where the future is infallibly known, alternative futures are not possible. Where there exist no possible alternatives, there exists no choice.

It does, as has already been said. And maybe you can realize this once I say it yet again. The future being infallibly known it NOT in dispute. There is only one future that God has foreknown. However that one future is the future WE choose to bring about. Thus, possible alternatives are not essential to choice.

If I knew infallibly that you would take the Ace of spades out of a deck of cards, it makes no difference if I presented you with the whole deck or only the Ace of spades. You are trying to claim that a choice exists when there is only one card that can be taken. If it were possible for a different card to be taken, then the foreknowledge could possibly be wrong. That's inconsistent with the stipulation of infallibility.

It would make a difference to me. If I were just presented with the one Ace that is the only thing existent to choose, even if you know I am going to choose it. If you present me with the full deck, there exists more than the Act to choose from, again even if you know I will choose the Ace. The one card that is taken is the card that I want to pick. I do not have the ability to take another card if you know I will take the Ace, but again I take the ace because I want to, not because you know I will. You know I will pick the ace because I choose to do so.

Let me ask you this: If God knows I will draw the Ace of spades from a deck of cards, can I draw the Queen of hearts? Can I draw the Jack of clubs? If you think I can, then you have admitted that God's knowledge can be wrong, which means you have been inconsistent.

NO, that is not being refuted. How many times must I say this? If God foreknows you will choose the Ace you will choose the Ace and not the Queen. We can go back and count how many times I've said this now, and you talk about comprehension issues?? Please...

In order to know something, it must exist. I said that in my very first response and you've totally ignored it.

I did not ignore it. I responded to it but since you are having troubles with grasping things I'll repeat it just like I apparently had to with the above. The event foreknown, A, does not 'exist' as a reality or actuality when it is foreknown. The event foreknown 'exists' conceptually.

Nonsense. You're arbitrarily excluding a characteristic of God that is part-and-parcel of its definition. Conclusions drawn from incomplete premises are not reliable.

And what characteristic is that??

Pick a different event then, if that one went over your head. If God knows that I will have Corn Flakes for breakfast, then it is not possible for me to have anything else. If it were possible, then his knowledge could possibly be wrong, and that's inconsistent. There might as well only be Corn Flakes in the cupboard. How can you call it a choice if there are no alternative possibilities?

There is no need to pick a different event as it wouldn't make any more sense. The Bold is not in dispute. I'll just say that one last time for your sake. It's a choice because Cork Flakes are what you want for breakfast. You want to eat them, so you choose to do so, and God foreknows of it. That is what has gone over your head by far.

You're simply asserting that it is a choice while ignoring my arguments to the contrary.

Nope. I've responded to them. Look and try harder.

And again, in order to know something, it must exist. You cannot know what doesn't exist. I cannot know what the greatest prime number is, for example. Not even God knows that one. Know why? It doesn't exist.

If it doesn't exist then it isn't there for For to not know and so is irrelevant to God's infallible knowledge. God knows everything that does exist, has existed, and will exist.

Assertions are not arguments, Einstein.

Try taking your own advice there pal.

Assertions are not arguments.

Maybe you're still trying to convince yourself?

Special pleading. I repeat: in order to know something, it must exist. All your assertions to the contrary mean nothing until you can explain how it is meaningful to know something which doesn't exist. Do you know the sum of the interior angles of a square circle? Do you know any married bachelors?

I am sure you couldn't even begin to attempt an explanation for special pleading here, even if there was one. I am saying God knows all that does exist. As the future exists conceptually for God, He foreknows of it.

Assertions are not arguments.

Have you convinced yourself yet?

 

[elopez]

What about God's Omnipresence? We can agree that God is omnipresent, can't we? If God can be present in a tree then he can be present in the mind. God can be omnipresent within our wills.

Yes but what omnipresence means we may not agree upon. To you it seems as if omnipresence means to encompass actual space within time. How is God present in a tree? What does that even mean? I mean, can't we just start making sense at some point...

Omnipresence means action. God must take action in his presence within a body (or anything). A body has functions. The mind has functions. Thoughts have functions.

Action I would take to mean omnipotence, not omnipresence.

Think of God's omnipresence as the Holy Ghost. You don't recieve the Holy Ghost at baptism. No man has a supernatural power to call a Spirit into a body. The Holy Ghost is already present within the body. Baptism just recognizes and calls to that Spirit within the body. The Holy Ghost is present within every human being. That Spirit is acting within the body of people moving their wills. It is the Spirit of life that drives us, not our own will. Just because someone sins does not mean they are deprived of this Spirit of life. It just means they are not in union with it.

I think of God's omnipresence as the whole Trinity. What is your point here? How is this related to the earlier discussion of foreknowledge?

It is the Spirit (God) that is present in all things including our wills. It is the Spirit that moves all things including our wills. There is not one part of creation that God's Spirit does not touch and act upon.

The Spirit does not act with the damned, at least not to the more significant manner than those are not damned.

 

[CTD]

The whole issue, it seems, is that your misunderstanding of "foreknowledge" is anthropomorphic. Your supposition that God cannot know X infallibly "before" it happens, is dependent upon this presupposition: that God experiences time as we do. Hopefully I can help with what is my understanding of the issue. "Foreknowledge," is a word used to convey a much greater reality about the nature of God.

But consider this. We would use the language to explain an experience of God as "here" or "there" while this is actually only legitimate from our perspective of space. We have an anthropomorphic misapprehension of what is spatially "present," to God. What we call "here" and "there" is actually to God only here.

LIKEWISE: what we would describe as having happened "earlier" or going to happen "later" are from God's eternal perspective all presently happening now.

And so you have Jesus saying "before Abraham was I am." Now even if we could make a similar statement (because of our finite experience of time) we could at most say before abraham was I was. But he says I am, which conveys the ever presence of the past and (in other scriptures) the future.

And so His knowledge no more fixes it than if He were simply watching it presently.
All things are open unto the eyes of Him with whom we have to do.

Yes, they're always attacking a straw god along such lines. The God of Christianity is timeless.

God is not restricted in any way regarding time. God is not bound by time, not prohibited from entering or exiting time.

The claim that a decision which is known cannot be free is obviously bogus. I know John Hancock chose to sign the Declaration of Independence. My knowledge does not suffice to remove the freedom of his choice.

Freedom has nothing to do with whether or not anyone will ever know of a decision. The question of freedom is a question of whether or not the decision was forced. Even logic itself doesn't force decisions, as atheism proves.

 

[bricklayer]

Here's something about Christianity that doesn't add up right to me:

Christians have said that God knows everything and can do anything. That means he knows the future or events which have yet to occur. He would therefore know today that a human being (we'll call him Pete) is going to choose 'A' instead of 'B'. However, since Pete has an unimpeded free will decision up until the time he makes his decision of either A or B, Pete could potentially choose B after God knew he was going to choose A. Can someone reconcile this?

It seems that you are confusing a free will with a secret will.

 

[Davian]

Yes, they're always attacking a straw god along such lines. The God of Christianity is timeless.

God is not restricted in any way regarding time. God is not bound by time, not prohibited from entering or exiting time.

The claim that a decision which is known cannot be free is obviously bogus. I know John Hancock chose to sign the Declaration of Independence. My knowledge does not suffice to remove the freedom of his choice.

Freedom has nothing to do with whether or not anyone will ever know of a decision. The question of freedom is a question of whether or not the decision was forced. Even logic itself doesn't force decisions, as atheism proves.

I asked this question earlier in this thread, but it was never addressed:

What about God? Can God make a decision? Can he change his mind?

How does a timeless entity get "through" the decision process?

 

[IndieVisible]

Here's something about Christianity that doesn't add up right to me:

Christians have said that God knows everything and can do anything. That means he knows the future or events which have yet to occur. He would therefore know today that a human being (we'll call him Pete) is going to choose 'A' instead of 'B'. However, since Pete has an unimpeded free will decision up until the time he makes his decision of either A or B, Pete could potentially choose B after God knew he was going to choose A. Can someone reconcile this?

Simple.

GOD is INFINITE and is outside of time.

We are verrrrrry finite and limited to a 3-D world stuck IN TIME.

For GOD a ZILLION LIGHT YEARS is but a nano of a second. In that short span of time we could have millions of worlds such as ours come and go and GOD would be able to know every possible out come for every thing. In a nano of a second.

Therefore we are already dead, this world is already gone, every thing has already been completed in GOD's MIND. We being stuck in time are merely playing catch up to GOD.

When you consider all that, questions such as yours is so trivia.

 

[CTD]

I asked this question earlier in this thread, but it was never addressed:

What about God? Can God make a decision? Can he change his mind?

How does a timeless entity get "through" the decision process?

If you don't care, why do you ask? If you do care, why haven't you given the question any thought or looked it up?

Indeed, if you're going to respond to my post, you might follow custom and read it. You presuppose God is excluded from time.

Question: If you're not going to read my posts, why should I respond?

Answer: for the very same reason you posted: others will see.

 

[Davian]

I asked this question earlier in this thread, but it was never addressed:

What about God? Can God make a decision? Can he change his mind?

How does a timeless entity get "through" the decision process?

If you don't care, why do you ask? If you do care, why haven't you given the question any thought or looked it up?

Indeed, if you're going to respond to my post, you might follow custom and read it. You presuppose God is excluded from time.

Question: If you're not going to read my posts, why should I respond?

Answer: for the very same reason you posted: others will see.

If I didn't care, I wouldn't ask.

I did look it up, but the results were inconclusive, like this one

I did read your post, but my question was specific to God, not people.

So, how do you resolve your claim of 'God of Christianity is timeless' with 'God makes a decision'?

 

[bricklayer]

I asked this question earlier in this thread, but it was never addressed:

What about God? Can God make a decision? Can he change his mind?

How does a timeless entity get "through" the decision process?

Reasoning is the ontological sequencing of ideas.
There are two types of ideas: intellectual conceptions and intellectual perceptions.
All ideas are originally conceived by God. God is the conceiver of all ideas.
Man is a perceiver of ideas.
God's reasoning ontologically sequences eternally present intellectual conceptions.
Man's reasoning ontologically sequences a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions.
One of the most significant differences between God's ideas and our ideas is that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.

 

[Davian]

I asked this question earlier in this thread, but it was never addressed:

What about God? Can God make a decision? Can he change his mind?

How does a timeless entity get "through" the decision process?

Reasoning is the ontological sequencing of ideas.
There are two types of ideas: intellectual conceptions and intellectual perceptions.
All ideas are originally conceived by God. God is the conceiver of all ideas.
Man is a perceiver of ideas.
God's reasoning ontologically sequences eternally present intellectual conceptions.
Man's reasoning ontologically sequences a chronological sequence of intellectual perceptions.
One of the most significant differences between God's ideas and our ideas is that we are not the first ones to have our ideas.

Sure.

Was that intended to answer my question?

 

[CTD]

If I didn't care, I wouldn't ask.

And now we see what you care about.

I did read your post, but my question was specific to God, not people.

So, how do you resolve your claim of 'God of Christianity is timeless' with 'God makes a decision'?

My previous post explained. I shall not assume your reading "skills" have improved. I do not dispute your capacity to keep pretending I have not answered. I shall not continue repeating myself. I shall not play your silly get-the-last-post game.

 

[CTD]

For the benefit of those who may have been drowsy or whatever, I'll point out a couple of things.

Earlier, a straw god was criticized on the basis of being bound by time.

With that having failed, it's now being presupposed that God must be excluded from time. Absurdity!

 

[Davian]

If I didn't care, I wouldn't ask.

I did look it up, but the results were inconclusive, like this one

I did read your post, but my question was specific to God, not people.

So, how do you resolve your claim of 'God of Christianity is timeless' with 'God makes a decision'?

And now we see what you care about.

My previous post explained. I shall not assume your reading "skills" have improved. I do not dispute your capacity to keep pretending I have not answered. I shall not continue repeating myself. I shall not play your silly get-the-last-post game.

Where did I say that you did not answer? I just think of this as an interesting conundrum. How would an omniscient, timeless (or not) being change its mind?

Anyone?

 

[bricklayer]

Sure.

Was that intended to answer my question?

Yes, it was. Let me put it this way.

God chose to use process to reveal His glory.
All of creation is a process.
No particle of matter can occupy the same relative position to the balance of matter in any two increments of time. Therefore, all of creation is subject to constant change.
Biological life is a series of processes. (Process- A prescribed sequence of changes)
We have intellectual, emotional and willful processes.
We are quite literally processes, physical, spacial, temporal processes.
God is not a process. He is whole, holy, complete, infinite, eternal, necessary and unchanging.

 

[Davian]

Yes, it was. Let me put it this way.

God chose to use process to reveal His glory.
All of creation is a process.
No particle of matter can occupy the same relative position to the balance of matter in any two increments of time. Therefore, all of creation is subject to constant change.
Biological life is a series of processes. (Process- A prescribed sequence of changes)
We have intellectual, emotional and willful processes.
We are quite literally processes, physical, spacial, temporal processes.
God is not a process. He is whole, holy, complete, infinite, eternal, necessary and unchanging.

That leaves me with the impression that God is sort of frozen/unchanging, while the universe goes on without him...

Then it is 'no', God cannot change his mind,

and 'no', God cannot make a decision?

 

[bricklayer]

That leaves me with the impression that God is sort of frozen/unchanging, while the universe goes on without him...

Then it is 'no', God cannot change his mind,

and 'no', God cannot make a decision?

No, God cannot forget. That is the only change of mind available to an omniscient being.

No, there are no decisions that God has not made.

The universe's existense is contingent upon God's will.
The universe exists as it does because God is actively willing that it does.

 

[steve_bakr]

The Bible speaks of both determinism and free wiill. There is a dynamic tension between the two. Psalm 139 says, "You have written all the days of my life in your Book before one of them came to be. Ultimately, God is the determining cause of everything, yet within our small lives we can make choices. It is a paradox.

Regarding some of the issues brought up in this thread, I appreciate the reverence for God of Muslim theologians in stating that some questions about God are inappropriate and even disrespectful to ask.

 

[Davian]

No, God cannot forget. That is the only change of mind available to an omniscient being.

No, there are no decisions that God has not made.

So no free will for God. He's locked in to whatever decisions have been made.

The universe's existense is contingent upon God's will.
The universe exists as it does because God is actively willing that it does.

Or because of the four fundamental forces (gravitational, electromagnetic, weak nuclear, strong nuclear).

How would one tell the difference?