Mathematics

[Code-Monkey]

1. God is omniscient.
2. Our choices are predetermined.
3. Free Will is the ability to refrain from doing x at point t.
4. If our choices are predetermined, we cannot refrain from doing x at point t.
C. Free Will does not exist.

This is what I've said. Free Will does not exist...that means we don't get to choose.

Why would you say our choices are predetermined? I would disagree with that premise.

I would say free will is the ability to do one of many things at point t. Say Bob can do X1, X2, or X3 at point t. But it is a true fact that if Bob freely chooses X2, then if you look at Bob making the choice in the present, then it will be X2. If you look at Bob in the past as he makes that decision, then he will still have chosen X2. If you could look at Bob making the decision in the future, then he would still be deciding X2.

It is true that if Bob freely choses X2, then Bob cannot go back at the same point t and choose differently as time continually moves forward and doesn't let us go back and choose again. But that isn't an argument against free will, but rather against the fact that time cannot be rewound and done over.

Our knowledge of them doing x is only correct if in fact they did x. God's knowledge of what we do in the past is only correct if we did it in the past. The same goes with the present and the future. But again... most people misunderstand what they're saying when they say the future. If God sees into the future and he sees you choosing X, then that doesn't have any bearing on whether or not you freely chose X.

Per point 4, which I'll repeat here again:

4. If our choices are predetermined, we cannot refrain from doing x at point t.

If we have free will and we freely choose x and point t, then x will always be what we have chosen at point t and cannot be different. If we had freely chosen x2 instead, then x2 would have been what we chose at point t. It's like a line on a graph and someone is insisting that free will suggests there can be multiple lines. We only have 1 life. However we make our free choices, that's how the line goes. But the fact that there is only one continuous line doesn't negate the fact that we have free will.

 

[EverlastingMan]

1. God is omniscient.
2. Our choices are predetermined.
3. Free Will is the ability to refrain from doing x at point t.
4. If our choices are predetermined, we cannot refrain from doing x at point t.
C. Free Will does not exist.

This is what I've said. Free Will does not exist...that means we don't get to choose.

First off I will respond to the other posts directed at me in a few hours, right now I have to write a english paper. But one quick problem with this, you don't prove that our choices are predetermined, merely assume.

 

[:æ:]

Suppose I knew a marksman. Not just any marksman -- this person is the perfect marksman. Where he aims, the bullets go, true and fast every time, and never does an errant bullet fly from his gun. It is true to say that our marksman knows where his bullets will go before he fires them.

Now, suppose the marksman's bullet is proven through ballistics to have killed a person. More than that, it is proven beyond any shadow of a doubt that the marksman fired the gun from whence the murderous bullet came. Does this mean he is guilty?

According to the reasoning offered by the Chrisitans in this thread, we cannot convict the marksman. Even though he always knows in advance where his bullets go, we cannot say that he intended to kill his victim. According to the Christian reasoning, the marksman did not control the bullet, he just knew in advance where it would go when he fired it.

 

[EverlastingMan]

In the christians reasoning, and mine (But note I am not a chirstian. I am debating this from that point of view however since the subject is the christian god and I do belief we have a free will.) the god is not forced to make a choice, in your example the marksman had to have made the choice. According to the christian reasoning god knows what WE will choose. And really I think your example has little to do with the topic; because it has more to do with knowledge of the future then knowledge of the future in relation to choices made in the future. You deal with the choice of a single entitiy, this debate focuses on the assured choice of one being and the potential for another being to make choices as well.

 

[nuclear]

But God already made the choice for you. He created you did he not? If he didn't create you, you wouldn't have made the choice. God knows what you will choose before you choose. You cannot make a different choice from the one God knew you'd make. If you are saying the contrary, ie, you are free to choose something else, you are implying that God can be wrong!

 

[:æ:]

In the christians reasoning, and mine (But note I am not a chirstian. I am debating this from that point of view however since the subject is the christian god and I do belief we have a free will.) the god is not forced to make a choice, in your example the marksman had to have made the choice.

Your comment doesn't make much sense. I realize that God is not forced to make choices, and neither was my marksman forced to fire his gun. How that amounts to some kind of incongruence in my analogy is entirely beyond me.

According to the christian reasoning god knows what WE will choose.

You are not free to stipulate that choice exists for people until you can demonstrate the consistency of infallible foreknowledge and free will. In other words, I would agree if you said "...god knows what we will do." Whether or not what we do can be meaningfully described as a choice is the crux of the debate.

And really I think your example has little to do with the topic; because it has more to do with knowledge of the future then knowledge of the future in relation to choices made in the future.

Same as above. You're begging the question of the existence of choice.

You deal with the choice of a single entitiy, this debate focuses on the assured choice of one being and the potential for another being to make choices as well.

Same question begging.

 

[EverlastingMan]

Your comment doesn't make much sense. I realize that God is not forced to make choices, and neither was my marksman forced to fire his gun. How that amounts to some kind of incongruence in my analogy is entirely beyond me.

What I mean is that we are here debating whether the god had to make the decision. Your example does not take this into account.

You are not free to stipulate that choice exists for people until you can demonstrate the consistency of infallible foreknowledge and free will. In other words, I would agree if you said "...god knows what we will do." Whether or not what we do can be meaningfully described as a choice is the crux of the debate.

True which was why I said "according to CHRISTIAN reasoning." Coincidentally this was the fault I was trying to say your example had.

Same as above. You're begging the question of the existence of choice.


Same question begging.

Yes I was very incoherent.

 

[EverlastingMan]

That's absurd, God is atemporal, to us it may be the present

You said it was the past for us. Unless you are conceding that point then you are contradicting yourself.

but God won't be contained within our timeline. You are claiming that time does not apply to god and it does apply to god... that's a contradiction.

True he will not. No I have said nothing of the sort. What I have said is that in eternity everything is now, the present. If everything is the present then there is no time, if tomorrow is now, yesterday is now, ten years from now is now, ect then we are ouside of the time dimension, Eternity.

When god is looking at the future... we are still in the present. We are that future's past... that is that past that I was referring to... we are in the past, we won't choose differently than what he already knows we are going to do.

Of course we are the future's past. We are always in the past of some future event, until the end of time when there is no future. At which point you logic would break down. For then we are no longer in the past we are only in the present.

I didn't say that he made us choose that...

all I did was give the definition of freewill that most poeple use... and I compared it with god's omniscient knowledge... and the result was that they contradicted each other.

If there is no free will as you seem to be infering then he made us choose that.

Your statement is contradictory to eternity. We exist in the present, God exists in eternity. Past, Present and Future imply temporality. God doesn't exist in any form of temporality. Time does not pass with God.

Everything in Eternity is now, which is to say there is no past or future For God creation is happening at the same time as is Armagedon. Everything is the present because everything is happening.

That contradicts your statement of God being eternal. According to God, the universe is begun, in the middle, and finished at the same time. Sustain implies the passage of time.

No it does not. Sustaining, the word I used, implies that God is currently sustaining the universe at the same time as he created it and the same time he ended it. Everything is now, thus the suffix "ing" which means it is in the present.

You're also taking my statement out of context. God caused the universe in relation to us...so relative to us we can state that God knows the future. God would look at the universe like a book (analogy time!) where the beginning middle and end are already written and determined. Just like the characters in a book, they cannot refrain from the doing actions, therefore it can be said that those characters have no libertarian free will. Who wrote the book?

I took it in full context and did not omit anything you said. God didn't write the book he made the binding put in the pages and we wrote it. Your analogy assumes that he made all the choices, thus forcing the answer to the question you pose that he did.

Um, dude, if the path is determined (we know this because God is all-knowing) then it cannot be said that we have libertarian free will. We cannot refrain from choosing x at point t, therefore free action is a fallacy.

Our disagreement stems from our word use; you say determinee I say known. Now if it is determined then you are by definition of that word right. IF known, however, is used then the path is not necessarily set. The Christian god in the bible uses the term known. Not determined.

No, nobody can know with absolute certainty about the future unless they are omniscient. Your first two examples are called predictions and don't apply.

I don't see how they are predictions. My examples were of course for a human predictions, but for God the amount of intimacy he would have with humans would allow him to know how they would meet every posible decision in their life and when he says he is going to make it happen it is hardly a prediction, it is going to happen. I am refering to God.

No, God knows the future because he is omniscient and knows everything.

Which is what the third sort of knowledge is.

You have not proven the path is not set, we know it is set because God knows everything.

Knowledge of a future event does not mean that the future event was caused by the being with the knowledge. It is merely not stopped.

You are using a false analogy, and you are just picking at one part of the argument out of context.

A necessary being enables a creature to act, an all-knowing and necessary being already has everything determined. A creature cannot refrain from making a choice at a specific point in time, therefore that creature is not free to choose.

It does not follow that an all knowledgable being caused everything, even if it is necessary. Its necessity does not change and suddenly make it dtermine everything. ITs necesscity still means only that it is an enabler. Its knowledge proves only that knows not that it forces or makes.
I was hoping to sum up my argument for free will but I can't now. This is why some of the rebuttals are incomplete, but unfortuanately my sisters are forcibly ousting me.

 

[:æ:]

What I mean is that we are here debating whether the god had to make the decision.

You might be debating this with someone else, but I am not debating it with anyone. It is a separate question whether or not God has free will, and not one that I have been concerned with debating.

Your example does not take this into account.

That is because my example was not constructed to speak to that question. I think you misconstrued the significance of it.

 

[Osiris]

You said it was the past for us. Unless you are conceding that point then you are contradicting yourself.

You seem to not want to understand the meaning of sentences and give them any meaning you want.

True he will not. No I have said nothing of the sort. What I have said is that in eternity everything is now, the present. If everything is the present then there is no time, if tomorrow is now, yesterday is now, ten years from now is now, ect then we are ouside of the time dimension, Eternity.

I don't think your concept of time is something which would match reality.

Of course we are the future's past. We are always in the past of some future event, until the end of time when there is no future. At which point you logic would break down. For then we are no longer in the past we are only in the present.

You seem to not address an argument and go off on a tangent. What you have said here is totally irrelevant to what I said... and your tangent has many flaws in logic.

You said: "of course we are the future's past"

Previous quote: "You said it was the past for us. Unless you are conceding that point then you are contradicting yourself."

The only one that is contradicting is yourself.

If there is no free will as you seem to be infering then he made us choose that.

you can infer many things not just that...

 

[EverlastingMan]

You seem to not want to understand the meaning of sentences and give them any meaning you want.

Please tell me how I did so. You said,"it may be the present for us" You also said "we are in the past". It does not appear to me that we can be both of those.

I don't think your concept of time is something which would match reality.

I have said nothing of my concept of time besides that in time there is a past present and future. What I have been discussing is eternity. And if you wish to deride my points as stupid ignorant and unrealistic and me as somewhat arrogant then please tell me how I am being arrogant and how my posts are so wrong. I am not closed minded and have conceded whole arguments before. I am here to oppen my mind, not just to declare I am right, as you seem to think I am.

You seem to not address an argument and go off on a tangent. What you have said here is totally irrelevant to what I said... and your tangent has many flaws in logic.

Let me redefine myself. We are of course the future's past. But we are not in the past. We are never in the past because we do not transcend time; to be in the past we would have to be in two times at once. We were in the past. You can call the present this very moment the past, because every event is the future's past, if you wish, but this does not change that we are in the present. It seems to me to be basically a pointless renaming of things not at all necessary to prove your point.

You said: "of course we are the future's past"

Previous quote: "You said it was the past for us. Unless you are conceding that point then you are contradicting yourself."

The only one that is contradicting is yourself.

I hope to have explained this seeming contradiction.

you can infer many things not just that...

Well that is just splendid. So why don't you tell us what you are infering and stop dancing around what percisely you mean like a rabid monkey.

:ae:
Well then I don't think I have anything to dispute with you, though I do wonder why you bothered give your example if it was not exactly applicable to both sides.

 

[Osiris]

Please tell me how I did so. You said,"it may be the present for us" You also said "we are in the past". It does not appear to me that we can be both of those.

This is what I mean by "you do not try to understand the meaning of sentences rather you give to them any meaning you want."

You seem to not want to understand what I meant by "we are in the past" in the context that I said it.

You want to make it so since I said we are in the past and later on I said we are in the present (in different context) you want to infer as if though they are contradictory by you giving them new meaning.

I have said nothing of my concept of time besides that in time there is a past present and future. What I have been discussing is eternity. And if you wish to deride my points as stupid ignorant and unrealistic and me as somewhat arrogant then please tell me how I am being arrogant and how my posts are so wrong. I am not closed minded and have conceded whole arguments before. I am here to oppen my mind, not just to declare I am right, as you seem to think I am.

You are using a different definition of what the standard definition of 'eternity' means. Eternity implies 'time' - an infinite amount of time which would be bounded by future/present/past.

Your explanation of 'eternity' is self contradictory... you say it does not need time while it in itself contains properties that require time.

Let me redefine myself. We are of course the future's past. But we are not in the past. We are never in the past because we do not transcend time; to be in the past we would have to be in two times at once.

You have jumped into an assumption to what I have said. I never said that we travel into the past, I don't even know why you even believe this and not question if you have read it wrong.

Time is relative (not using it in the same sense as Eisntein here), if God were looking at our future... we would be in that future's past without having to transcend time now wouldn't we? If you go back and read what I said I hope it makes sense now.

I thought freewill was something like this: If we could go back into the past, we could choose differently.

right now, we are in the past, if God knows what we will do/choose... then we can't choose differently than what he already knows.(which is the past)

I hope you can see now that the context of: "we are in the past" -- means we are in the past in relevance to God's knowledge regarding the future.

We were in the past. You can call the present this very moment the past, because every event is the future's past, if you wish, but this does not change that we are in the present. It seems to me to be basically a pointless renaming of things not at all necessary to prove your point.

I hope you see that here you were just debating your own misunderstanding of what I said.

I hope to have explained this seeming contradiction.

...

Well that is just splendid. So why don't you tell us what you are infering and stop dancing around what percisely you mean like a rabid monkey.

well, first of all, all I pointed out was that if God knows our future then we have no choice but to choose that which God knows.

You can infer many things from this... but this does not mean that I inferred them. Some of the things you can infer from them is that which you stated:

1. You can assume that God made us choose that.
2. You can assume that God didn't have a choice himself.
3. You can assume whatever you want.

 

[EverlastingMan]

This is what I mean by "you do not try to understand the meaning of sentences rather you give to them any meaning you want."

You seem to not want to understand what I meant by "we are in the past" in the context that I said it.

You want to make it so since I said we are in the past and later on I said we are in the present (in different context) you want to infer as if though they are contradictory by you giving them new meaning.

Well then thank you for explaining. I see what you mean and it was my mistake.

You are using a different definition of what the standard definition of 'eternity' means. Eternity implies 'time' - an infinite amount of time which would be bounded by future/present/past.

Well here is what we know:
God is in eternity,
God is outside of time.
Thus Eternity cannot be bound by time, nor can it be time.
The definition you have given is very basic. WE say he has an infinite amount of time because in eternity there is no time and thus it goes on forever which is easiest, though not most realistically, described as an infinite amount of time. What you have given is more the sunday school definition of eternity rather than a working theological definition.

Your explanation of 'eternity' is self contradictory... you say it does not need time while it in itself contains properties that require time.

No the present does not require time. The present means both a state of being and a period in time. I am using it in the former sense.

You have jumped into an assumption to what I have said. I never said that we travel into the past, I don't even know why you even believe this and not question if you have read it wrong.

Well I was not saying that either. I was saying that we are not in the past. Your rationale for saying that we are in the past is that we are the future's past. But this is not a very good reason for we are also the past's future and the present's present. We can label the present as anytime period, but it is still the present. It is not the past for us because we are not yet in the future, it is not the past for God because both he is outside of time and here now. It is not the future for us because we are here now, it is not the future for God either fot the same reasons as before. We will be the past, but we are not yet. And we were the future but we are not anymore.

Time is relative (not using it in the same sense as Eisntein here), if God were looking at our future... we would be in that future's past without having to transcend time now wouldn't we? If you go back and read what I said I hope it makes sense now.

Yes that is so. But it does not follow that we "are" in the past.

I thought freewill was something like this: If we could go back into the past, we could choose differently.

right now, we are in the past, if God knows what we will do/choose... then we can't choose differently than what he already knows.(which is the past)

I hope you can see now that the context of: "we are in the past" -- means we are in the past in relevance to God's knowledge regarding the future.

Yes that we are. But really it does not matter.

well, first of all, all I pointed out was that if God knows our future then we have no choice but to choose that which God knows.

You can infer many things from this... but this does not mean that I inferred them. Some of the things you can infer from them is that which you stated:

1. You can assume that God made us choose that.
2. You can assume that God didn't have a choice himself.
3. You can assume whatever you want.

You are still avoiding the question, which was what are you inferring from this argument, not what can be inferred. And what you say is not an argument if anything can be inferred that I wish.

 

[EverlastingMan]

On review, I would say you are right but I would say that we are in the past in relation to God being in the future, rather than in relation to his knowledge of the future.

 

[Code-Monkey]

According to the reasoning offered by the Chrisitans in this thread, we cannot convict the marksman. Even though he always knows in advance where his bullets go, we cannot say that he intended to kill his victim. According to the Christian reasoning, the marksman did not control the bullet, he just knew in advance where it would go when he fired it.

I don't think it's technically correct to say God knows "in advance" what we do. It implies God is looking at it from our perspective, as if he is somehow foretelling the future. I think it's far more accurate to simply say that God is watching the present, and he understands/knows fully what he is watching.

The issue isn't God's knowledge, as we all know that knowledge doesn't cause the fact. The issue is whether or not we have free will. If God created us with free will, then by definition we are the originators of our own actions (within the limits of what nature allows).

The fatal flaw in the argument has always been it's insistence that knowledge causes something to happen. As soon as we can come to an agreement that that my opinion is made true only by the fact in question being true, then we can move forward. If God's opinion is that George Washington was the first US president, then God's opinion is only true if GW was in fact the first US president. Once we identify knowledge and opinions as not being the cause of the action, then by occam's razor we eliminate it from being a viable source as the cause at any time.

The argument then comes down to the claim that God cannot make objects with free will. And there is no rational basis for that -- it's just a claim.

 

[Patzak]

The fatal flaw in the argument has always been it's insistence that knowledge causes something to happen. As soon as we can come to an agreement that that my opinion is made true only by the fact in question being true, then we can move forward. If God's opinion is that George Washington was the first US president, then God's opinion is only true if GW was in fact the first US president. Once we identify knowledge and opinions as not being the cause of the action, then by occam's razor we eliminate it from being a viable source as the cause at any time.

But it's not being argued that knowledge causes anything. If we had a God that was merely omniscient but not omnipotent, then yes, one could say that his knowledge of our actions would possibly have no bearing on their causes. However, determinism would still stand; I think we can probably agree on the following:

1. God knows that Johnny will do x.
2. God is omniscient.
3. It is neccessarily true that Johnny will do x.

Now if God is merely omniscient but not omnipotent (nor the creator), we could say that Johnny's action is determined by something other than God's will. But we cannot say that it's not determined - at this point we don't care what determines it; could be another god, basic properties of matter, whatever. But it's not free. It's neccessary.

Now since God is usually claimed not only to be omniscient but also the omnipotent sole creator, we can rule out all the other possible causes that could in a different setting determine Johnny's actions. There are no other gods to do it now and physical laws can now only be thought as intermediary causes - ultimately put into effect at the point of creation.

So you're part right. Knowledge, even perfect knowledge, doesn't neccessarily determine anything, merely establishes the actions as determined (by whatever). But perfect knowledge coupled with being the all-powerful creator do make God the cause of everything we do, our actions determined by the way he created the world.

 

[:æ:]

I don't think it's technically correct to say God knows "in advance" what we do. It implies God is looking at it from our perspective, as if he is somehow foretelling the future.

He is foretelling the future. That's what it means to have foreknowledge. He supposedly knows what will happen tomorrow. That's foreknowledge, by definition. It doesn't imply anything about God's perspective. It is simply how things are from our perspective.

I think it's far more accurate to simply say that God is watching the present, and he understands/knows fully what he is watching.

That could only work if time didn't exist, and it still doesn't escape the deterministic consequences of everything being simultaneously known.

The issue isn't God's knowledge, as we all know that knowledge doesn't cause the fact.

No, but reasonable foreknowledge of the necessary consequences of one's choice to act conveys culpability for causation. My argument is that according to the Christian description God created the universe knowing full-well what would happen as necessary consequences of his decision to create it. God was the perfect marksman and the universe was His bullet. When He "fired" the universe into existence and it travels precisely where He aimed it, why shouldn't we say He is responsible for causing it?

The issue is whether or not we have free will. If God created us with free will, then by definition we are the originators of our own actions (within the limits of what nature allows).

Does anyone else on this board understand what begging the question means? Good grief. See my earlier post to EverlastingMan for my response to this nonsense.

The fatal flaw in the argument has always been it's insistence that knowledge causes something to happen.

No, the fatal flaw in the Christian argument is it's convenient ignorance of God's creatorship.

<snip-snip-snip>

 

[Code-Monkey]

But it's not being argued that knowledge causes anything. If we had a God that was merely omniscient but not omnipotent, then yes, one could say that his knowledge of our actions would possibly have no bearing on their causes. However, determinism would still stand; I think we can probably agree on the following:

1. God knows that Johnny will do x.
2. God is omniscient.
3. It is neccessarily true that Johnny will do x.

Super. Yes, I think we could agree on these 3 things.

I will add these:

4. God's knowledge that Johnny will do x did not cause Johnny to do x.

Now if God is merely omniscient but not omnipotent (nor the creator), we could say that Johnny's action is determined by something other than God's will. But we cannot say that it's not determined - at this point we don't care what determines it; could be another god, basic properties of matter, whatever. But it's not free. It's neccessary.

At this point you either have lost me by using some other meaning for the terms "necessary" and "free" or by making an illogical jump.

It is necessary that every moment we are alive, we are in fact doing something.

5. At every point t, where are doing some action x.

What's still at question is whether or not it is possible for Johnny to be the originating cause for action x OR if that is simply not possible.

Now since God is usually claimed not only to be omniscient but also the omnipotent sole creator, we can rule out all the other possible causes that could in a different setting determine Johnny's actions.

Hmm... Again, we may just have a communication gap. Omnipotence, as virtually all theology I read, has meant that that God has the maximum amount of power possible. It does not mean that he in fact does every single possible act, but simply that he has the power to do all acts. A much easier way of looking at this. I have the power of jumping. And yet I do not jump every second of every day despite having that power. God, if he is omnipotent, has the power to create life, create universes, create time, love, etc... If God doesn't create a universe every second then it doesn't diminish the fact that he does in fact have the power to create universes. If he creates a create that he can "operate" as a puppeeter would a puppet, then it doesn't necessitate that he actually operates it like a puppet. There still lies the possiblity that he could give the creature the ability to operate itself.

It's the ability for the creature to operate itself within certain limits that makes that creature "free" (as I am using the term).

So you're part right. Knowledge, even perfect knowledge, doesn't neccessarily determine anything, merely establishes the actions as determined (by whatever). But perfect knowledge coupled with being the all-powerful creator do make God the cause of everything we do, our actions determined by the way he created the world.

I'm sorry. you glossed over whether or not a creature is capable of deciding it's own actions. If God has the ability to control us, and if God sees us act at every moment in time, it still does not logically suggest or even imply that he has decided to control our actions.

 

[Code-Monkey]

He is foretelling the future. That's what it means to have foreknowledge. He supposedly knows what will happen tomorrow. That's foreknowledge, by definition. It doesn't imply anything about God's perspective. It is simply how things are from our perspective.

I'll try to rephrase. God's knowledge of what we do comes from direct observation. From our perspective, since we are within time, we have this notion that yesterday is gone and tomorrow has not yet come. There is no rational reason why a being outside of our time would have that same perspective. For a being outside of our time, tomorrow and yesterday may simply be 2 separate sides to a cube. That being may be able to turn it over and look at it at all angles. But it would be a direct observation of us literally doing something in the future or doing something in the past.

That could only work if time didn't exist, and it still doesn't escape the deterministic consequences of everything being simultaneously known.

There aren't deterministic consequences. If I clap my hands and 50 people observe me doing so. The very moment I clap my hands, they have knowledge of me doing so. Their knowledge has not caused me to clap my hands, yet that is what you are saying is happening.

The other claim is just a simple implicit claim that God cannot create creatures capable of making their own choices. Again, nobody has ever produced a sound argument in support of that claim.

There are no sound arguments against free will.

 

[:æ:]

I'll try to rephrase. God's knowledge of what we do comes from direct observation. From our perspective, since we are within time, we have this notion that yesterday is gone and tomorrow has not yet come. There is no rational reason why a being outside of our time would have that same perspective. For a being outside of our time, tomorrow and yesterday may simply be 2 separate sides to a cube. That being may be able to turn it over and look at it at all angles. But it would be a direct observation of us literally doing something in the future or doing something in the past.

What you don't understand is that for what you say to be true, I would have to have done things already that I have not done because they lie in my future. If you say that God knows what I will do tomorrow by directly observing me doing it, that implies that I have already done what I will do tomorrow. Since I have not done already whatever it is I will do tomorrow, God cannot have directly observed me doing anything, and therefore he does not have foreknowledge. You can't have foreknowledge and an indeterministic future at the same time.

Whats even worse for you is that if you postulate that all actions HAVE already happened, there can be no meaningful decision making. It's all been decided already.

There aren't deterministic consequences

That you are unable to recognize the deterministic consequences does not mean they do not exist.

If I clap my hands and 50 people observe me doing so. The very moment I clap my hands, they have knowledge of me doing so. Their knowledge has not caused me to clap my hands, yet that is what you are saying is happening.

That is nothing like what I am saying.

The other claim is just a simple implicit claim that God cannot create creatures capable of making their own choices. Again, nobody has ever produced a sound argument in support of that claim.

That is not the claim, either. Do you work in a strawman factory? Are you incapable of seeing that there are not two claims, but one claim that depends on two stipulations? The claim is simply that God cannot create creatures with free-will and simultaneously have omniscient foreknowledge of their lives. The proposition is incoherent for reasons already given in excess. Just because you put the three letters G-O-D together into a word and try to give it a definition does not mean you get to use it as a get-out-of-logical-jail-free-card

There are no sound arguments against free will.

That you are unable to recognize the sound arguments does not mean they do not exist.

No, but reasonable foreknowledge of the necessary consequences of one's choice to act conveys culpability for causation. My argument is that according to the Christian description God created the universe knowing full-well what would happen as necessary consequences of his decision to create it. God was the perfect marksman and the universe was His bullet. When He "fired" the universe into existence and it travels precisely where He aimed it, why shouldn't we say He is responsible for causing it?

Why didn't you comment on this?