Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[Wiccan_Child]

There ARE objective Tests -- the problem is, people have come in to CORRUPT what is true and that makes it hard for one who is NOT a Christian to know what those truths are in order to spot one; alot of times, TIME has to tell
.
The bible gives us doctrinal truths that must be accepted, (repentance, turning from sin, fruits of God's Spirit, outward works we do, our love for other saints, and not leaving the faith, etc.)

These are not objective tests: there is no way to objectively verify whether someone believes in a certain statement or not.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

There is a true test. But, it is often times seen in retrospect. While its happening, it just seems like something one must do.


There is an unexplainable deep hunger for the Word of God that accompanies salvation. Like a newborn does not have to be taught to suck for his mother's breast. Its spiritual instinct.

Its a drive that takes over. We must have it or its painful... like touching dry ice is painful. Its a soul anguish if we are denied. Denied like I was for almost ten years because of the circumstances of my salvation, having been Jewish.

When I was finally given the Word I devoured it with amazement. It was not something done out of intellectual curiosity. It was an absolute NEED.

I fail to see the objective test.

 

[Nadiine]

I fail to see the objective test.

Do you have any strong desire to accept, serve, pray to/talk with, worship and obey the God of the Bible?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Do you have any strong desire to accept, serve, pray to/talk with, worship and obey the God of the Bible?

Is there any objective way to gauge whether my answer is truthful or not? Is so, what? If not, then there is no objective test, as I said.

 

[Nadiine]

Is there any objective way to gauge whether my answer is truthful or not? Is so, what? If not, then there is no objective test, as I said.

I just asked a simple yes or no question - how about we get that answer first instead of the cart before the horse?

 

[DerSchweik]

I think the argument here has deteriorated to "argument for argument's sake." I doubt it much matters what anyone has to say from this point on, just feeding additional fodder for more pseudo intellectualism and pointless philosophical word-wrangling.

Kudos to Nadiine, Genez and others for trying...

"Sometimes reason is reason enough to argue..." Karl Jaeger

 

[Wiccan_Child]

I just asked a simple yes or no question - how about we get that answer first instead of the cart before the horse?

Fine, I'll bite.

My answer: yes.

Now, answer my question: is there any objective way to gauge whether my answer is truthful or not? Is so, what? If not, then there is no objective test, as I said.

 

[GenemZ]

Fine, I'll bite.

My answer: yes.

Now, answer my question: is there any objective way to gauge whether my answer is truthful or not? Is so, what? If not, then there is no objective test, as I said.

Is there an objective way to verify? That its possible to answer you in a way you can grasp?



Is there an objective way to describe to another a taste? One that they never experienced? One that is unique? Does it mean the taste is not real, if one can not describe it?


In other words.... some things are only verifiable by experiening it for oneself. NOT BY DESCRIBING IT.




That is why I see this type of challenge you are presenting as being illogical silliness, which is crouched in appearing to having an intellectual approach. For one can not describe what can only be known by experiencing it for oneself.






In regards to God's omniscience and man's free will?


If God is truly omniscient?


He would know how to grant free will to those he creates.



Does the fact that he can create free will in his creatures? Depend on the creature's ability to perceive how it can be?


Can God not create free will? Even though how he does it? Is not to be understood by the created?

The lack of comprehension of a reality does not nullify it being a reality.

Its not nullified because something can not be verified according to a limited single means One, demanded by someone that it must be proven one way.

Daddy? Tell me see what it felt like to fall in love with Mom? That you love her. Make it objectively verifiable.​

Son... wait till you fall in love. That's the only way you will know. ​

Ahah! You can not objectively verify that you love Mom!​

​

In Christ, GeneZ

WONDERFUL TRUTH IN CHRIST​

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Is there an objective way to verify? That its possible to answer you in a way you can grasp?



Is there an objective way to describe to another a taste? One that they never experienced? One that is unique? Does it mean the taste is not real, if one can not describe it?


In other words.... some things are only verifiable by experiening it for oneself. NOT BY DESCRIBING IT.




That is why I see this type of challenge you are presenting as being illogical silliness, which is crouched in appearing to having an intellectual approach. For one can not describe what can only be known by experiencing it for oneself.

You appear to have completely missed my point. All I asked was whether there was an objectively verifiable test for 'Christian-ness'. I never implied that the lack of such a test equals a lack of possible 'Christian-ness'.
Jeez.

In regards to God's omniscience and man's free will?


If God is truly omniscient?


He would know how to grant free will to those he creates.

Even omniscients cannot know how to cause two mutually exclusive premises to be simultaneously true. Omniscience is a logical absolute, and therefore follows the laws of logic.

Does the fact that he can create free will in his creatures? Depend on the creature's ability to perceive how it can be?


Can God not create free will? Even though how he does it? Is not to be understood by the created?

The lack of comprehension of a reality does not nullify it being a reality.

Naturally. But incomprehension is not the issue here: one arrives at a logical contradiction when one assumes that there is both an omniscient and free will. Therefore, the two premises cannot be simultaneously true.
Our inability to comprehend four-sided triangles is not why we know they are impossible: it is the logical contradiction that ensues that tells us.

Its not nullified because something can not be verified according to a limited single means One, demanded by someone that it must be proven one way.

I never said that it must.

Now answer my question:

Is there an objectively verifiable test for 'Christian-ness'?

If someone says they are a Christian, is there any objevtive way to test the truthfulness of their claim?

 

[Nadiine]

Even omniscients cannot know how to cause two mutually exclusive premises to be simultaneously true. Omniscience is a logical absolute, and therefore follows the laws of logic.

This is known as a pseudo-question. It’s like asking, “Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?” or, “If God beat Himself up, who would win?” or, “Can God’s power defeat His own power?”

The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase “stronger than” can only be used when two subjects are in view, for example, Bill is stronger than Bob, my left arm is stronger than my right arm, etc. Since God is only one, and since He has no parts, it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself. That’s why this is a pseudo-question. It proves nothing about any deficiency in God because the question itself is incoherent. </STRONG>
This pits one aspect of God’s ability against another--in this case, His creative ability against His ability to lift. The goal is to show that there are some things God can’t do, thus undermining the Christian concept of an omnipotent Creator. This illustration, however, miscasts the biblical notion of omnipotence, and is therefore guilty of the straw man fallacy.

Omnipotence doesn’t mean that God can do anything. The concept of omnipotence has to do with power, not ability per se. In fact, there are many things God can’t do. He can’t make square circles. He can’t create a morally free creature who couldn’t choose evil. He can’t instantly create a sixty-year-old man (not one that looks sixty, but one that is sixty).
None of these, though, have to do with power. Instead, they are logically contradictory, and therefore contrary to God’s rational nature. The “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?” challenge is no threat to Christian theism

 

[Nadiine]

Now answer my question:

Is there an objectively verifiable test for 'Christian-ness'?

If someone says they are a Christian, is there any objevtive way to test the truthfulness of their claim?

I have already answered this - I know the Q is pointed to genez, but the answer is YES, the problem is, you need to know what God's truth is first TO PROPERLY TELL WHO'S THE CHRISTIAN as far as doctrine is concerned.

And that's bcuz YOU have rejected that truth yourself as per scripture.
Now you ARE given outward signs of what a Christian naturally displays - namely over time. Those are what you have to 'judge' our claims with.

Obviously that nutjob at Westborough church that goes picketing against homosexuals with HATE signs and crashing funererals - they are displaying hearts and attitudes inconsistent with the Christian doctrine.
Therefore, you CAN assess that they're frauds to the faith.

Same with active homosexuals inside the churches - the Bible CLEARLY forbids sexual immorality - and 1 Cor 5 says it's to be put out of the church (when openly embraced) - instead, people hire actively gay and gay supporting CLERGY. THIS is a clear act of sin that defies the definition & standards of Christianity.
We don't OPENLY promote & embrace sin.

So yes there ARE "tests", the issue is, ARE YOU CAPABLE OF READING THE BIBLE TO KNOW WHAT'S EXPECTED OF US?
And don't forget, that the "tests" that exist aren't just for nonChristians to be able to discern Christianity, it's mostly used by Christians to spot the false within their ranks or to know their brothers by.

But unfortunately many nonchristians aren't real great at knowing what Christianity is all about - there's lots of misnomers & stereotypes we're thrown into... plus there are many who PROMOTE sin and who applaude the few denominations who have put homosexuals in their clergy and who defy the clear doctrines in the Bible.

Romans 1:32
Who knowing the judgment of God, that they which commit such things are worthy of death,
not only do the same, but have pleasure in them that do them.
​

 

[JonF]

Why bother. The logical conflicts from a God that knows the furture and can never be wrong and freewill should be obvious. They are are to me at least.

Have you read my very long conversation with Wiccan_Child in this thread? If you claim that there is a contradiction between freewill and foreknowledge you are either making a claim that foreknowledge is causal or you are poorly defining free will.

Not to mention the implications of God being evil to the point of purposefully creating people for the soul purpose of damning them, since He already knows if they'll accept Christ or not.

Again, you are having causal issues.

You appear to have completely missed my point. All I asked was whether there was an objectively verifiable test for 'Christian-ness'. I never implied that the lack of such a test equals a lack of possible 'Christian-ness'.

Jeez.

Absolutely! You can look at their testimony, their works, their faith&#8230; etc etc etc. These are all valid test to give evidence of &#8220;Christian-ness&#8221; but none can give you absolute certainty, as discusses earlier in this thread that belongs to God alone. Also, you presume the only type of evidence you can offer for an existence claim is objective, and this is clearly false.

Even omniscients cannot know how to cause two mutually exclusive premises to be simultaneously true. Omniscience is a logical absolute, and therefore follows the laws of logic.

I do not believe omniscience is consistent with a denial of omnipotent. Luckily Christians make both claims about God. Being a big fan of the transcendental argument logical consistency exist because it reflects God&#8217;s nature, not the other way around.

If someone says they are a Christian, is there any objevtive way to test the truthfulness of their claim?

This is a version of the Socratic fallacy.

 

[sentipente]

No end in sight.

 

[Nadiine]

Quote:
If someone says they are a Christian, is there any objevtive way to test the truthfulness of their claim?

This is a version of the Socratic fallacy.

Can you spell this out in laymans terms for me please? lol
I still lift up the fact that the objective "test" of Christianity by a non Christian, HAS TO BE UNDERSTOOD BY THE NONCHRISTIAN.

For instance, if our bible condemns homosexuality clearly (which it does), then a non Christian cannot read that & decide that the bible is not condemning homosexuality, then further decides, "this isn't a Christian bcuz they don't "accept and love" homosexuals."

The TEST is right, the PERSON's observation is OFF. ie. THEY ARE WRONG.

I kind of liken this to the Creation/Evolution argument. I'm absolutely illiterate in science. I have no interest in it [for starters], and I know very little about it.
So when I read 2 people in a scientific debate for and against Creationism, how am I to decide which scientific position is correct???
I can't. All I can do is use my own bias & pick the one that supports what I already believe - & that's what MANY other laypeople do too. Now if that were the ONLY means of arriving at creation or evolution, that might be a problem! Thankfully, there are other ways to arrive at that conclusion.

But that isn't the case in Christianity - there are simple statements made as to what we OUTWARDLY display and what we generally must believe to be a Christian. (and not unlike science being the ONLY way to ascertain a Creator, "testing" or spectating Christians isn't the ONLY way to know if God exists either).

It's not rocket science. Like I said, Christians use those tests.
Jesus said this in Mat. 7
15 "Beware of the false prophets, who come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly are ravenous wolves.
16 "You will know them by their fruits. Grapes are not gathered from thorn bushes nor figs from thistles, are they?
17 "So every good tree bears good fruit, but the bad tree bears bad fruit.
18 "A good tree cannot produce bad fruit, nor can a bad tree produce good fruit.
19 "Every tree that does not bear good fruit is cut down and thrown into the fire.
20 "So then, you will know them by their fruits. 21 "Not everyone who says to Me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father who is in heaven will enter.

Also, people who reject the central, fundamental doctrines essential to salvation are a 'test' - doctrinal beliefs are CRUCIAL to Christianity.
Today, the unorthodox has crept in & is "Hijacking" Christianity and causing utter confusion to non Christians - in our politically correct, liberal-driven culture.
People with false doctrines contrary to scripture teaching lack understanding of God's truth in scripture & show that they don't know the Lord. Scripture is basically Spritually discerned / it's written & understood on different levels.

1 Corinthians 2:14
13which things we also speak, not in words taught by human wisdom, but in those taught by the Spirit, combining spiritual thoughts with spiritual words.
But a natural man does not accept the things of the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him;
and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually appraised.​

John 8
42Jesus said to them, "If God were your Father, you would love Me, for I proceeded forth and have come from God, for I have not even come on My own initiative, but He sent Me.​

43 "Why do you not understand what I am saying? It is because you cannot hear My word.

44 "You are of your father the devil, and you want to do the desires of your father He was a murderer from the beginning, and does not stand in the truth because there is no truth in him Whenever he speaks a lie, he speaks from his own nature, for he is a liar and the father of lies.​

Acts 28:27
FOR THE HEART OF THIS PEOPLE HAS BECOME DULL,AND WITH THEIR EARS THEY SCARCELY HEAR,
AND THEY HAVE CLOSED THEIR EYES;OTHERWISE THEY MIGHT SEE WITH THEIR EYES, AND HEAR WITH THEIR EARS, AND UNDERSTAND WITH THEIR HEART AND RETURN,AND I WOULD HEAL THEM."'
(in caps by the site)​

Ephesians 4:18
being darkened in their understanding,
excluded from the life of God because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardness of their heart;
19and they, having become callous, have given themselves over to sensuality for the practice of every kind of impurity with greediness.​

So yes, there ARE objective tests... the issue is, not everybody is qualified or capable or impartial enough to apply the test appropriately.
In these cases, it would be best for that person to worry more about their own spiritual condition than to sit on the sidelines judging who is and isn't one.​

 

[Yekcidmij]

Naturally. But incomprehension is not the issue here: one arrives at a logical contradiction when one assumes that there is both an omniscient and free will.

I think being omniscient entails foreknowledge, which as far as I can tell has been beaten around at length, and middle knowledge. That is to say God knows what will happen for any given situation, but He also knows what could happen in any given situation. And God's knowing what could happen and what will happen does not violate free will. You will still freely choose weather or not you are going to cut the grass tonight. God's knowing what you are going to do does not violate you ability to choose what to do.

 

[JacobHall86]

You know there are alot of people who dont believe in free will right?

 

[DerSchweik]

No end in sight.

Ditto.

One argument generates another, which generates another, and another, ad infinitum - with no resolution to anything, just more verbosity and intellectual claptrap.

Perhaps that's the whole point.

 

[JonF]

Can you spell this out in laymans terms for me please?

In short the Socratic fallacy is:

In order for X to know Y is Z. X must be able to do both of the following:
-Describe exactly what is necessary to be Z
-Describe if Y has such properties.

 

[BlueAfgani]

Have you read my very long conversation with Wiccan_Child in this thread? If you claim that there is a contradiction between freewill and foreknowledge you are either making a claim that foreknowledge is causal or you are poorly defining free will.


Again, you are having causal issues.

What is a casual issue, and no, I haven't read your arguement between Wiccan.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

This is known as a pseudo-question. It’s like asking, “Can God win an arm wrestling match against Himself?” or, “If God beat Himself up, who would win?” or, “Can God’s power defeat His own power?”

It's a valid question to highlight the nonsense that arises when one ascribes omnipotence / omniscience to an entity.
It's the same technique used to prove the irrationality of the square root of two: assume the root is rational, and demonstrate that it leads to a logical contradiction or a nonsensicle result. This is proof that the premise is false (be it a rational root, or omnipotence).
One way to address this fallacy is to better define omnipotence (namely, to define it as the ability to do anything logically possible).

The question is nonsense because it treats God as if He were two instead of one. The phrase “stronger than” can only be used when two subjects are in view, for example, Bill is stronger than Bob, my left arm is stronger than my right arm, etc. Since God is only one, and since He has no parts, it makes no sense to ask if He is stronger than Himself. That’s why this is a pseudo-question. It proves nothing about any deficiency in God because the question itself is incoherent. </STRONG>

What question are you referring to? I made a statement, nothing more.

The “Can God make a rock so big He can’t lift it?” challenge is no threat to Christian theism

Agreed. I still don't see your point though.

I have already answered this - I know the Q is pointed to genez, but the answer is YES, the problem is, you need to know what God's truth is first TO PROPERLY TELL WHO'S THE CHRISTIAN as far as doctrine is concerned.

Assuming you know what God's truth is, can you give me a list of the conditions required for one to be classified as a Christian?

Obviously that nutjob at Westborough church that goes picketing against homosexuals with HATE signs and crashing funererals - they are displaying hearts and attitudes inconsistent with the Christian doctrine.
Therefore, you CAN assess that they're frauds to the faith.

As far as I can tell, they're following their Christian doctrine: label gays as abominations, etc.

Same with active homosexuals inside the churches - the Bible CLEARLY forbids sexual immorality - and 1 Cor 5 says it's to be put out of the church (when openly embraced) - instead, people hire actively gay and gay supporting CLERGY. THIS is a clear act of sin that defies the definition & standards of Christianity.
We don't OPENLY promote & embrace sin.

There is a gross presumption you have made: you have equated homosexuality with sexual immorality. Can you justify this presumption?

But unfortunately many nonchristians aren't real great at knowing what Christianity is all about - there's lots of misnomers & stereotypes we're thrown into...

By all means, explain to me what Christianity is about.

plus there are many who PROMOTE sin and who applaude the few denominations who have put homosexuals in their clergy and who defy the clear doctrines in the Bible.

You presume that all Christians must follow the same doctrine as you. Did it ever occur to you that you are the one who has misinterpreted the Bible?