How can omniscience & omnipotence be compatible with free will?

[Cieza]

God never knows Pete is going to chose A when Pete is going to chose B. God does not make mistakes.

You're contradicting yourself.

First you state God has infallible knowledge of what Pete's choice will be at a point in time prior to when Pete makes the choice.

Then you state Pete is free to choose A or B up until the time of his choice.

If both were true, then you are on the hook to explain what happens if God knows Pete will choose A and Pete ends up choosing B.

 

[Cieza]

Actually no. It seems that you are projecting your efforts onto me.

If you are looking for biblically based answers, to the biblically based questions then you have to yield to what the bible says, even if it redefines your position. You can not start off with a biblically based subject like the nature of God, and then make up your own definition of "free will" that forces a contradiction. Why? Because this is the definition of a straw man argument. Again if you wish to create a straw man I will identify it and dismiss it as I have done to this point.

This is not a straw man argument. We're looking at a paradox which exists if we go by the Christian definition of a God who knows everything and can do anything coexisting with man's ability to freely choose A or B.

This thread is about the conflict between omniscience/omnipotence & man's ability to make unimpeded free will decisions. If you wish to discuss definitions of Omniscience/omnipotence, and how it relates to your personal definition of "Free will," then start another thread or PM me.

Would you like me to create a new thread merely to clarify what I mean by free will?

What do you think "free will" means?

But more importantly:

1) Can God do anything?
2) Does God know everything?
3) Does a human who ends up making a choice of A or B have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the point in time he ultimately makes his choice?

 

[elopez]

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

Whatever happened to the other repeat thread you started?

 

[drich0150]

This is not a straw man argument. We're looking at a paradox which exists if we go by the Christian definition of a God who knows everything and can do anything coexisting with man's ability to freely choose A or B.

This is a strawman argument because a Straw man is defined as A component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

I defined Free will as being the ability to be outside the expressed will of God. (not freedom of choice.) I further identified what you labeled as free will as being a component of a causality argument. Which is not supported by the bible as free will.

Thus making your efforts to redefine "free will" over that of how the bible defines it, a straw man argument. Because of this, your questions are invalid question not answerable by scripture you use to partially frame your strawman.

Would you like me to create a new thread merely to clarify what I mean by free will?

no, I just thought it cool to use your line on you.

What do you think "free will" means?

Free will as the bible defines it was posted for you in my first response.

1) Can God do anything?
2) Does God know everything?
3) Does a human who ends up making a choice of A or B have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the point in time he ultimately makes his choice?

Asking your strawman over and over only points to your desperation in this argument. If you want out of this cycle You must first address the actual biblical definitions provided to you, or concede to the fact you are simply making up terms and definitions for them. For the express purpose of creating what you think to be a paradox.

I will make a deal with you. admit to what you are doing (creating a strawman for the purpose of creating what you think to be a paradox) and I will answer your stated questions.

 

[Cieza]

This is a strawman argument because a Straw man is defined as A component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

Then I gather your contention is that God cannot do anything and does not know everything. Try telling elman this, as he clearly states that God can do anything and knows everything.

I defined Free will as being the ability to be outside the expressed will of God. (not freedom of choice.) I further identified what you labeled as free will as being a component of a causality argument. Which is not supported by the bible as free will.

My apologies for not having a proper understanding of what "free will" means. When I said free will, I meant the ability to make an unimpeded free decision between two or more choices and prior to the point you made the decision, you still had the option of making one of the other choices.

Thus making your efforts to redefine "free will" over that of how the bible defines it, a straw man argument. Because of this, your questions are invalid question not answerable by scripture you use to partially frame your strawman.

Now that you understand what I mean by "free will", put your strawman argument aside, and let's resolve this paradox.

Free will as the bible defines it was posted for you in my first response.

Since there has been a good faith disagreement between us as to what "free will" is, I have clarified what I really meant.

Asking your strawman over and over only points to your desperation in this argument. If you want out of this cycle You must first address the actual biblical definitions provided to you, or concede to the fact you are simply making up terms and definitions for them. For the express purpose of creating what you think to be a paradox.

It's not a strawman argument. I'm going by the Christian definition of a God which knows everything and can do anything. Couple this with man's ability to make an unimpeded free choice between A & B and you have a paradox which can only be resolved by establishing one of the following to be true:

1) God cannot do anything
2) God does not know everything
3) Man does not have the ability to freely choose between two or more choices when presented with a choice.

Unless one of those is true, then you have a paradox.

I will make a deal with you. admit to what you are doing (creating a strawman for the purpose of creating what you think to be a paradox) and I will answer your stated questions.

I cannot admit something that isn't true or you'll be under false presumptions. I'm not going to say I believe 2+2 is equal to 10. Please answer my questions.

1) Can God do anything?
2) Does God know everything?
3) Does a human who ends up making a choice of A or B have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the point in time he ultimately makes his choice?

 

[drich0150]

Then I gather your contention is that God cannot do anything and does not know everything. Try telling elman this, as he clearly states that God can do anything and knows everything.

I have no "contention" to answer these question till we establish an accord to the definitions of the words you are misusing.

My apologies for not having a proper understanding of what "free will" means. When I said free will, I meant the ability to make an unimpeded free decision between two or more choices and prior to the point you made the decision, you still had the option of making one of the other choices.

Then I would say this does not follow the biblical definition of the words in question. I would further point out you have framed a biblically based questions using biblically based words and then you have interjected a modern term using popular understanding of this word against a 2000+ year old precept.

This is not a valid question. not until you concede you misusage of this word. which have all but done when you redefined "free will" a moment ago.

Now that you understand what I mean by "free will", put your strawman argument aside, and let's resolve this paradox.

Again, you redefining "freewill" is indeed what makes your argument a strawman fallacy.

Since there has been a good faith disagreement between us as to what "free will" is, I have clarified what I really meant.

you have foolishly interjected a popular term and replaced a biblical one in order to create a perceived paradox. One that I have a very good answer to, if you would simply concede to your misdeeds.

It's not a strawman argument.

Again because you redefined "freewill" and refuse to acknowledge the biblical definition of the word, you have indeed Created a component of an argument that is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Which is known as a Strawman. Your efforts fit this definition perfectly. That makes your whole argument a Straw Man.

Here I will break it down for you:

I'm going by the Christian definition of a God which knows everything and can do anything.

Exactly! here you are taking a biblical component.

Couple this with man's ability to make an unimpeded free choice between A & B

And coupling it with a misrepresentation of an opponent's position, by using a non biblical definition.

Which make your statement/question a straw man fallacy!

and you have a paradox which can only be resolved by establishing one of the following to be true:

1) God cannot do anything
2) God does not know everything
3) Man does not have the ability to freely choose between two or more choices when presented with a choice.

Unless one of those is true, then you have a paradox.

The rest of this can be sectioned off and dismissed as incoherent ramblings, if I so choose.

I cannot admit something that isn't true or you'll be under false presumptions. I'm not going to say I believe 2+2 is equal to 10.

Well I have taken the time to point out and very specifically define your efforts, so now you and everyone else reading can truly see the "equation" before you.

Please answer my questions.

1) Can God do anything?
2) Does God know everything?
3) Does a human who ends up making a choice of A or B have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the point in time he ultimately makes his choice?

Quid pro quo, Clarice, Quid pro quo. You want your questions answered I want my admission of your misdeeds, as I have outlined.

 

[Cieza]

I have no "contention" to answer these question till we establish an accord to the definitions of the words you are misusing.


Then I would say this does not follow the biblical definition of the words in question. I would further point out you have framed a biblically based questions using biblically based words and then you have interjected a modern term using popular understanding of this word against a 2000+ year old precept.

This is not a valid question. not until you concede you misusage of this word. which have all but done when you redefined "free will" a moment ago.


Again, you redefining "freewill" is indeed what makes your argument a strawman fallacy.


you have foolishly interjected a popular term and replaced a biblical one in order to create a perceived paradox. One that I have a very good answer to, if you would simply concede to your misdeeds.


Again because you redefined "freewill" and refuse to acknowledge the biblical definition of the word, you have indeed Created a component of an argument that is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position. Which is known as a Strawman. Your efforts fit this definition perfectly. That makes your whole argument a Straw Man.

Here I will break it down for you:
Exactly! here you are taking a biblical component.


And coupling it with a misrepresentation of an opponent's position, by using a non biblical definition.

Which make your statement/question a straw man fallacy!

The rest of this can be sectioned off and dismissed as incoherent ramblings, if I so choose.

Well I have taken the time to point out and very specifically define your efforts, so now you and everyone else reading can truly see the "equation" before you.


Quid pro quo, Clarice, Quid pro quo. You want your questions answered I want my admission of your misdeeds, as I have outlined.

It's obvious to me that you have no desire to help me resolve this conundrum. It's also clear to me that you are afraid that a good look at this conundrum will reveal a big hole in your belief system. Thus your evasion of my questions. You may want to read the post of Ishraqiyun at the bottom of http://www.christianforums.com/t7577015-3/
It most definitely applies to you.

 

[solarwave]

If both were true, then you are on the hook to explain what happens if God knows Pete will choose A and Pete ends up choosing B.

That makes no sense and is easily explainable.

 

[drich0150]

It's obvious to me that you have no desire to help me resolve this conundrum. It's also clear to me that you are afraid that a good look at this conundrum will reveal a big hole in your belief system. Thus your evasion of my questions. You may want to read the post of Ishraqiyun at the bottom of http://www.christianforums.com/t7577015-3/
It most definitely applies to you.

What is obvious is that you are wired to only think in one direction and when someone points out a fatal flaw in your logic. your only reaction is to ignore what you can not account for, and when someone holds you accountable to your word and thought you turn and run.

You ask why Christians were so evasive. I'd now like to ask you the same question. Why are you being so evasive? Why will you not accept the biblical definitions provided for you? Why do you hang on to an argument that has been proven to be a logical fallacy? Do you hope to simply regroup and reask someone else the same question and hope they do not see the big hole in your argument? Even if they do not you now know it is their. Causing another to stumble does not validate your fatally flawed argument.

You have an opportunity to work out this fatal flaw right here,all you have to do is to adhere to the biblical definitions of the words you are using.

 

[GrayAngel]

The word free will means being able to love. Love is a choice or it is not love. Sin is a choice or it is not sin. A robot world in which God is responsible for and the source of all evil does not make any sense to me. Why would God created someone and make them lost and then punish them forever? Why would He do that? A loving God would not do that. I don't believe in an evil Creator.

Are these your personal opinions, or do you have any scripture to back up this view? I can show you dozens of verses to prove my point if I have to. But the question is which is more important to you, your ideas or the Bible?

 

[Cieza]

What is obvious is that you are wired to only think in one direction and when someone points out a fatal flaw in your logic. your only reaction is to ignore what you can not account for, and when someone holds you accountable to your word and thought you turn and run.

You ask why Christians were so evasive. I'd now like to ask you the same question. Why are you being so evasive? Why will you not accept the biblical definitions provided for you? Why do you hang on to an argument that has been proven to be a logical fallacy? Do you hope to simply regroup and reask someone else the same question and hope they do not see the big hole in your argument? Even if they do not you now know it is their. Causing another to stumble does not validate your fatally flawed argument.

You have an opportunity to work out this fatal flaw right here,all you have to do is to adhere to the biblical definitions of the words you are using.

Let's backpeddle a little bit to ensure there is no misunderstanding of the question I'm asking.

My assumptions based on what Christians have told me:
1) Can God do anything? YES
2) Does God know everything? YES

And what I know through first hand observation:
3) Does a human who ends up making a choice of A or B have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the point in time he ultimately makes his choice? YES

Now to ensure we're on the same page and so we can proceed, please answer the same three questions:

1) Can God do anything?
2) Does God know everything?
3) Does a human who ends up making a choice of A or B have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the point in time he ultimately makes his choice?

 

[elman]

You're contradicting yourself.

First you state God has infallible knowledge of what Pete's choice will be at a point in time prior to when Pete makes the choice.

Then you state Pete is free to choose A or B up until the time of his choice.

If both were true, then you are on the hook to explain what happens if God knows Pete will choose A and Pete ends up choosing B.

No I am not contradicting myself. God never knows Pete will chose A. He always knows Pete will chose B.

 

[elman]

Are these your personal opinions, or do you have any scripture to back up this view? I can show you dozens of verses to prove my point if I have to. But the question is which is more important to you, your ideas or the Bible?

Have you looked for any scripture to prove we can chose to love others? Matt 25:31 and following, for example. First John. Ezekiel 18. Almost every page of the Bible reflects people making choices and suffering the consequences of their choices. Just let the Bible fall open and put your finger on a verse at random. Is anyone making a choice that is either pleasing to God or unpleasing?

 

[drich0150]

Let's backpeddle a little bit to ensure there is no misunderstanding of the question I'm asking.

So you are no longer asking about certain omni aspects of God and how they relate to the modern interpertation of "free will?"

My assumptions based on what Christians have told me:
1) Can God do anything? YES
2) Does God know everything? YES

Ok so far so good.

And what I know through first hand observation:
3) Does a human who ends up making a choice of A or B have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the point in time he ultimately makes his choice? YES

If Option "A" is not to sin, and Option "B" is to sin, then your answer is No. We do not have that option.

The A/B option as it relates to sin is an illusion, as we are slaves to sin we have no choice but to eventually sin.

That is why we must have understanding that free will is the ability/Right to exist outside of the expressed will of God, and not freedom of choice.

 

[Cieza]

If both were true, then you are on the hook to explain what happens if God knows Pete will choose A and Pete ends up choosing B.

That makes no sense and is easily explainable.

Why does it make no sense?

If it is easily explainable, then please provide your explanation.

 

[Cieza]

No I am not contradicting myself. God never knows Pete will chose A. He always knows Pete will chose B.

Not true. Here's why.

There are four possible scenarios when dealing with a binary choice.
On day 1, Pete hasn't yet made his day 3 A/B choice
On day 1, God knows that Pete will choose A on day 3
On day 3, Pete chooses A

On day 1, Pete hasn't yet made his day 3 A/B choice
On day 1, God knows that Pete will choose A on day 3
On day 3, Pete chooses B

On day 1, Pete hasn't yet made his day 3 A/B choice
On day 1, God knows that Pete will choose B on day 3
On day 3, Pete chooses A

On day 1, Pete hasn't yet made his day 3 A/B choice
On day 1, God knows that Pete will choose B on day 3
On day 3, Pete chooses B

Note in two of the four scenarios, God's foreknowledge of Pete's A/B choice is wrong.

If this doesn't clarify things, then read the following:

God is supposed to be omniscient. He knows everything about the past, present, and future. In fact, his knowledge is so complete that he must know every action that he himself will take in the future.

Now, suppose you yourself were granted the power of omniscience -- not omnipotence or any of the other useful attributes, but you know everything. Suppose it comes time to make a fairly mundane decision, like what you will eat for breakfast. You can have scrambled eggs or oatmeal. So you wonder, what am I in the mood for? Scrambled eggs, or oatmeal? But this is an easy decision: you are omniscient! Simply use your unlimited knowledge to peer a few minutes into the future, and see what it is that you will have for breakfast. And when you look at your future self, you know, as a matter of absolute certainty, whether you will be eating eggs or oatmeal.

But wait a minute. What if you are in a perverse frame of mind and wish to exercise your free will? So you say to yourself "Okay, here's what I'll do. I'll check the future, but I won't do what it says. If I see myself eating oatmeal, then I'll pick scrambled eggs. If I see myself eating eggs, it'll be oatmeal."

Now what does that mean for your powers? If your vision is guaranteed to be accurate, then you don't have the free will to change your decision. But if you can change your decision, then your vision was wrong, and you are no longer omniscient.

 

[Cieza]

So you are no longer asking about certain omni aspects of God and how they relate to the modern interpertation of "free will?"


Ok so far so good.

If Option "A" is not to sin, and Option "B" is to sin, then your answer is No. We do not have that option.

The A/B option as it relates to sin is an illusion, as we are slaves to sin we have no choice but to eventually sin.

That is why we must have understanding that free will is the ability/Right to exist outside of the expressed will of God, and not freedom of choice.

My apologies if I led you to believe that the choice of A or B was akin to the choice of to sin or to not sin. When I say the choice of A or B, I mean anything from choosing to eat Wheaties or Cheerios to choosing to buy gasoline at Chevron or Shell.

It seems as if you believe the following to be true:

1) Can God do anything? YES
2) Does God know everything? YES
3) Does a human who ends up making a choice of A or B have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the point in time he ultimately makes his choice? YES (as long as the choice of A vs. B doesn't represent choosing to sin vs. choosing to not sin).

Am I correct about your beliefs?

 

[drich0150]

My apologies if I led you to believe that the choice of A or B was akin to the choice of to sin or to not sin. When I say the choice of A or B, I mean anything from choosing to eat Wheaties or Cheerios to choosing to buy gasoline at Chevron or Shell.

It seems as if you believe the following to be true:

1) Can God do anything? YES
2) Does God know everything? YES
3) Does a human who ends up making a choice of A or B have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the point in time he ultimately makes his choice? YES (as long as the choice of A vs. B doesn't represent choosing to sin vs. choosing to not sin).

Am I correct about your beliefs?

Put me down for an big I don't know for number three, as complete freedom of choice is not a biblical precept.
The rest we can agree on.

 

[Cieza]

3) Does a human who ends up making a choice of A or B have the freedom to choose either A or B up until the point in time he ultimately makes his choice? YES (as long as the choice of A vs. B doesn't represent choosing to sin vs. choosing to not sin).

Put me down for an big I don't know for number three, as complete freedom of choice is not a biblical precept.
The rest we can agree on.

Let's say you have a choice to eat either Cheerios or Wheaties tomorrow morning. Prior to making the choice, by definition (or presupposition), you could still either choose Cheerios or Wheaties.

If you did not have a choice to eat Cheerios or Wheaties prior to the point in time you actually make your choice, then just what purpose does making the choice serve? Did you not freely choose one instead of the other?

Let's say you end up choosing Wheaties. If you didn't freely choose Wheaties instead of Cheerios, then what would happen if you attempted to choose Cheerios instead?

 

[drich0150]

Let's say you have a choice to eat either Cheerios or Wheaties tomorrow morning. Prior to making the choice, by definition (or presupposition), you could still either choose Cheerios or Wheaties.

If you did not have a choice to eat Cheerios or Wheaties prior to the point in time you actually make your choice, then just what purpose does making the choice serve? Did you not freely choose one instead of the other?

Let's say you end up choosing Wheaties. If you didn't freely choose Wheaties instead of Cheerios, then what would happen if you attempted to choose Cheerios instead?

If we have not been given complete reign over the choices we make then your argument becomes moot.

I have consciously chosen not to sin, and yet i still do. which would indicate that complete freedom of choice is an illusion. If it were not then I could live a sin free life. simply because a choice presents itself does not mean you are free to choose as you will. (That is the illusion) We are told, we are slaves to sin meaning we have to choose the path of sin sooner or later.

The only real "choice" we are given is whether or not we choose to accept redemption for our sins, thereby allowing us to be with God for eternity.