Why a true omniscient cannot coexist with true free will.

[BlueAfgani]

Ironic... If you did not have free will? You could not choose anything contrary to his will.

No, if God knows how the game of life will play out, and still makes people who he knows will "disobey" him, then apparently it is God's will to have people "disobey" him.

No, God made you in spite of the fact he knew you would reject him.

There's no in spite. God knows what my choice will be, it's not a question, it's not up in the air. He made me to reject him, because if He knows I'm going to reject him and made me anyway, there's no other reason.

They don't HAVE to "roast" if they'de repent & turn from rebelling against Him now would they?

[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]...

The choice is made before we're born. God knows what we will choose. If he knows one is going to reject them, there is no possibility that he won't reject God, because that would mean God was wrong.

It's like a movie. Lord Of The Rings, ugly dude falls in the lava with the ring, movie ends. Well what if one day you're watching that movie, just outta nowhere, Sam knocks Frodo over the hand, takes the ring, and throws that little midget and the ugly dude in the lava, movie ends.

I don't know if I can make my case any clearer.

 

[GenemZ]

No end in sight.

Because when someone is in a free fall down a bottomless pit, they keep reaching out endlessly trying to stop their fall.

Problem is.... they keep reaching out to the rescued for their answer, rather than reaching out to the Rescuer.

 

[GenemZ]

No, if God knows how the game of life will play out, and still makes people who he knows will "disobey" him, then apparently it is God's will to have people "disobey" him.

Its God will to reveal that he has allowed people to disobey him. Its his glory to have created free will in a created life.

If you can think about it. Just try to imagine creating something that is free to choose for itself independently of its creator. Its a marvel of creation. God glories in the fact that he has succeeded in creating an object of true love. For, without free will, no true exchange of love can exist.

 

[JonF]

No, if God knows how the game of life will play out, and still makes people who he knows will "disobey" him, then apparently it is God's will to have people "disobey" him.



There's no in spite. God knows what my choice will be, it's not a question, it's not up in the air. He made me to reject him, because if He knows I'm going to reject him and made me anyway, there's no other reason.



[wash my mouth][wash my mouth][wash my mouth]...

The choice is made before we're born. God knows what we will choose. If he knows one is going to reject them, there is no possibility that he won't reject God, because that would mean God was wrong.

It's like a movie. Lord Of The Rings, ugly dude falls in the lava with the ring, movie ends. Well what if one day you're watching that movie, just outta nowhere, Sam knocks Frodo over the hand, takes the ring, and throws that little midget and the ugly dude in the lava, movie ends.

I don't know if I can make my case any clearer.

Do you maintain that God caused the choice the person made?

 

[GenemZ]

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'.

Its you who have been missing the point. We have supplied the answer. Ironically, your response is revealing that there is a test for Unchristian-ness.

1 Corinthians 2:14 (New International Version)
"The man without the spirit does not accept the things that come from the Spirit of God, for they are foolishness to him, and he cannot understand them, because they are spiritually discerned."



​

 

[Yekcidmij]

No, if God knows how the game of life will play out, and still makes people who he knows will "disobey" him, then apparently it is God's will to have people "disobey" him.

No, God gives people the ability to choose weather or not to obey. So God's will is that all should have free will. I think God would want everyone to believe, but He wills their free will.

There's no in spite. God knows what my choice will be, it's not a question, it's not up in the air. He made me to reject him, because if He knows I'm going to reject him and made me anyway, there's no other reason.

The blames is squarely on our shoulders. God created us with a free will. He made us with a choice to beleive or reject, but He made us anyway because of love.

The choice is made before we're born.

Nope. The choice is made when you actually make it. Foreknowledge does not violate this.

God knows what we will choose. If he knows one is going to reject them, there is no possibility that he won't reject God, because that would mean God was wrong.

God's knowing what you will choose doesn't eliminate your free choices. If God knows that someone is going to reject Him, that still does not eliminate the possibility that they would accept God; if they did accept God though, that would just mean God knew differently. Free choice is still not violated.


The question should be:
Why does God create people who He knows will freely choose to reject Him?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Its you who have been missing the point. We have supplied the answer.

You have given no answer!
I have asked for the objective test you keep claiming exists, yet you keep dodging the question.

What.
Is.
The.
Test.
For.
'Christian-ness'.

 

[JonF]

What.
Is.
The.
Test.
For.
'Christian-ness'.[/size]

i answerd your question...

 

[DerSchweik]

The question should be:
Why does God create people who He knows will freely choose to reject Him?

Excellent point, Jim.

I don't understand the difficulty understanding what free will means w/r to God's knowing their choice ahead of time.

That God knows what we will choose in no way negates our ability to choose freely. But this seems to be a snag in some people's understanding.

To assert that just because God knows we will freely choose A instead of B, does not mean we are not free to choose B. If we chose B instead, then God would know that ahead of time too. We're still free to choose either.

God's knowing what we will choose is irrelevant to our choice!

Where is the difficulty here?

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Absolutely! You can look at their testimony, their works, their faith… etc etc etc. These are all valid test to give evidence of “Christian-ness” but none can give you absolute certainty, as discusses earlier in this thread that belongs to God alone.

Please, give me the criteria one must fulfill to be classified as 'Christian'. I am honestly curious.

Also, you presume the only type of evidence you can offer for an existence claim is objective, and this is clearly false.

I believe you are contradicting your terms. If a piece of evidence can be offered in favour of an argument, then it is objective.

What evidence is both objective and non-objective?

Subjective evidence is not useful outside of one's own head. Objective evidence is very useful in this regard: it is something outside of one's head, and is knowable to everyone.

This is a version of the Socratic fallacy.

I fail to see the fallacy Socrates is alleged to have committed. Indeed, I can only see this as relevant if you are claiming that 'Christian-ness' is a nebulous, undefinable concept. If that is the case, then tell it to those people who are claiming an objective test exists. It is them to whom I ask for criteria.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

Agreed.

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.

I disagree: if he knows what we will do, what our actions will be, then how are we free to do otherwise? For omniscience to exist, the universe must be predictable.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

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.

It's called debate, and rare indeed is the debate that ends in a clear concession of defeat.

 

[JonF]

Please, give me the criteria one must fulfill to be classified as 'Christian'. I am honestly curious.

IMHO: The person must be regenerate, by God’s sovereign grace.

I believe you are contradicting your terms. If a piece of evidence can be offered in favour of an argument, then it is objective.

No it isn’t, the definition of evidence and object don’t have much to do with each other. You might disagree with me that evidence can be subjective, but that doesn’t mean it’s a contradiction in terms. What evidence do you give for subjective claims of existence? How does one prove they are “happy”, “cold”, “tired”, or any state that isn’t physical, or anything that isn’t physical for that mater/

What evidence is both objective and non-objective?

none

Subjective evidence is not useful outside of one's own head. Objective evidence is very useful in this regard: it is something outside of one's head, and is knowable to everyone.

Subjective evidence is very useful. Subjective evidence is completely legitimate to form your OWN belief, it’s just not legitimate for others to form their belief on.

I fail to see the fallacy Socrates is alleged to have committed. Indeed, I can only see this as relevant if you are claiming that 'Christian-ness' is a nebulous, undefinable concept. If that is the case, then tell it to those people who are claiming an objective test exists. It is them to whom I ask for criteria.

No, not everyone who is a Christian needs to be able to tell you why they are a Christian in order to really be a Christian. They are fully capable of being a Christian with out knowing why. The SF has nothing to do with definiablitly or knowability

p.s. I’m leaving work so I probably won’t get to your next reply for at least an hour or two

 

[DerSchweik]

It's called debate, and rare indeed is the debate that ends in a clear concession of defeat.

Conceded. Debates are formal presentations of arguments for opposing sides of an issue which rarely end in concession one way or another.

Yet this isn't exactly a formal forum, nor is this discussion at all formal in structure. And the "issue" here is all over the map, contrary to debate.

This I think is more aptly described as a "discussion" or "argument" rather than debate.

My point, which I do not yield, is that this argument has become fruitless, heading nowhere except to more and more argument. And when argument becomes the point, contention is the only result.

"But, that is just my opinion; I could be wrong." Dennis Miller.

 

[Wiccan_Child]

IMHO: The person must be regenerate, by God’s sovereign grace.

I... don't understand.

No it isn’t, the definition of evidence and object don’t have much to do with each other. You might disagree with me that evidence can be subjective, but that doesn’t mean it’s a contradiction in terms.

On the contrary, I fully understand that subjective evidence is still evidence. It just looses it's usefulness outside one's head.

What evidence do you give for subjective claims of existence? How does one prove they are “happy”, “cold”, “tired”, or any state that isn’t physical, or anything that isn’t physical for that mater

You can't. That's my point.
Just because you say you're tired doesn't mean you are (biological symptoms aside).

Subjective evidence is very useful. Subjective evidence is completely legitimate to form your OWN belief, it’s just not legitimate for others to form their belief on.

Which is what I said: it is useless outside of your own head.

No, not everyone who is a Christian needs to be able to tell you why they are a Christian in order to really be a Christian. They are fully capable of being a Christian with out knowing why.

I was referring to specific posters (theirs names elude me).

The SF has nothing to do with definiablitly or knowability

So what is it's relevance?

p.s. I’m leaving work so I probably won’t get to your next reply for at least an hour or two

Take your time.

 

[Yekcidmij]

I disagree: if he knows what we will do, what our actions will be, then how are we free to do otherwise? For omniscience to exist, the universe must be predictable.

We may just disagree then.

I think we are free to do otherwise, but if we do, then God knew that outcome all along. I can decide to go cut the grass tonight or to not cut the grass tonight. Either way I decide, God still knew which I would choose. That in no way violates my decision to cut the grass or not to cut the grass.


I think I do need to cut the grass though.

 

[Yekcidmij]

It's intimidating to me, that some being would know what I will do before I do it. The implications of course is that God is extremely powerful by that fact alone.

But I don't know what exactly He knows, so my choices are still free. If He dropped down from the coulds and forced me to do something, that would violate my ability to choose freely. But His just knowing doesn't in any way force me to do anything.

 

[JonF]

I... don't understand.

Check out the book of Romans.

On the contrary, I fully understand that subjective evidence is still evidence. It just looses it's usefulness outside one's head.

Wrong, it’s perfectly legitimate justification for why you believe what you believe, it’s just not legitimate in most cases to present for why others should believe what you believe.

You can't. That's my point.

Just because you say you're tired doesn't mean you are (biological symptoms aside).

Here is where you get it wrong. The problem with evidence that person X is saved isn’t honesty. Because then the strength of the evidence is just contingent on the honesty of the person. The problem is that there is never sufficient evidence that another person is saved. If you are trying to ask can I with absolute certainty say that someone is saved the answer is “no”, no I can’t.

Which is what I said: it is useless outside of your own head.

Already discussed above

I was referring to specific posters (theirs names elude me).

So what is it's relevance?

You were demanding that other Christians demand tell you exactly what conditions are necessary for salvation. This loaded demand is a version of the SF. Much like the SF it has nothing to do with knowability or definabeability, just rather what a particular person can do.

Take your time.

Thanks

 

[Wiccan_Child]

Check out the book of Romans.

I still don't understand.

Wrong, it’s perfectly legitimate justification for why you believe what you believe, it’s just not legitimate in most cases to present for why others should believe what you believe.

I'm not sure what your objection is: I agree with you. Subjective evidence can be used inside one's own head. When explaining to someone else why you believe what you believe, the explanation, "I have subjective evidence that supports it" is fine. However, there is no reason to expect them to think you are telling the truth.

Here is where you get it wrong. The problem with evidence that person X is saved isn’t honesty. Because then the strength of the evidence is just contingent on the honesty of the person. The problem is that there is never sufficient evidence that another person is saved. If you are trying to ask can I with absolute certainty say that someone is saved the answer is “no”, no I can’t.

Which is all I wanted to know. You took a roundabout way of answering my question, but at least you did.

You were demanding that other Christians demand tell you exactly what conditions are necessary for salvation. This loaded demand is a version of the SF. Much like the SF it has nothing to do with knowability or definabeability, just rather what a particular person can do.

By claming to have an objective test for 'Christian-ness', they implied that they have a definition of 'Christian-ness' (after all, how else could they have an objective test for it). I demanded nothing; I just want to know what this definition is, and what this test is.

 

[JonF]

ah then this all comes down to "what it means to be a Christian". Romans, it’s a book in the bible, it explains what it takes to become/mean a Christian.