Free will vs Omniscience

quote:

---

Nonsense.

---

No, just your ignorance. To count as knowledge in the full sense, in the sense used in this thread a belief has to be true.

quote:

---

The knowledge folks had of the Sun going around the Earth didn't change the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun.

---

An erroneous belief doesn't count as knowledge. And the fact that the Earth goes around the Sun is not part of anyone's mental state.Now if you had just got down to the point straight away all this could have been cleared up much faster. Instead you chose to waste time talking about guessing when it wasn't even relevant.

The OP asked how foreknowledge and freewill could coexist.Discussing the potential deficiencies of the common pop-philosophy understanding of knowledge is not an act of ignorance or error, but spot on the topic and (seeing as no one has offered a fully agreeable solution) probably not a waste of time.

Oh don't be daft, it doesn't take any kind of grading to realize that some accomplishments are greater than others. I remembered to put the toilet seat back down before I left for work this morning!Oh, oh yeah, I also got a nice salary increase for a promotion that I got at work today.

quote:

---

The OP asked how foreknowledge and freewill could coexist.

---

And obviously assumed that "knowledge" could not be wrong. And it must also be pointed out that the possibility of error has been already dealt with sufficiently.

quote:

---

Discussing the potential deficiencies of the common pop-philosophy understanding of knowledge is not an act of ignorance or error, but spot on the topic and (seeing as no one has offered a fully agreeable solution) probably not a waste of time.

---

So please explain why it's worth taking 8 posts to get to a trivial point which has already been covered - by way of an equivocation (whether based in error, ignorance or whatever).

Yes, I have.Again... if I'm not making the choice, who is? I don't see a way it could be factual either.
I mean, it includes a God... I don't think God is factual.Being factual isn't the point, here... this entire conversation is moot if we're trying to be factual because such fanciful things aren't really defined very well.But, if we make the assumptions that I've layed out, and carry things forward from there... then my example is "factual"-according to those listed assumptions.If you want to change the playing field back to real-life factual, then I just have to remind you that I'm not talking about real-life. I'm just having an imaginary conversation... because that's all we can do with these concepts and the information we have about them at this time.

Yes, it WOULD be knowing "the future." So yes.Goes back to the chicken-and-egg thing I mentioned before.You're saying that if God knows the future... then it's set, and we can't choose.
I'm saying that we choose, then the future's set, then God knows it.You're saying God prescribes the future.
I'm saying God describes the future.I understand it is unintuitive.
I understand I cannot show that it's possible.I also understand that you can't show that your stance is possible. Like I'm saying, we can't "test the future" to see what way it is.Yes, your ideas are more in tune to how we as humans are used to experiencing time.
But physics has shown us that what we find intuitive isn't always the way things are.Until you can test and show that your ideas of knowing-the-future MUST mean that whoever knows it is prescribing it.. then the equally unevidenced idea that knowing-the-future can be done in a descriptive way is also valid.

quote:

---

Until you can test and show that your ideas of knowing-the-future MUST mean that whoever knows it is prescribing it.. then the equally unevidenced idea that knowing-the-future can be done in a descriptive way is also valid.

---

That's not my idea. The idea that God prescribes the future is derived from God's role as Creator, as I have argued, not from mere foresight.

From your employer's point of view, showing up for work is probably more important than your degree. He lost interest in that right after he decided to hired you.

I tend to look at this in a different way. IMHO God knows all of the past as past , is aware of all that is happening and aware of what will happen if they are the inevitable results of natural law or anything that is of divine intervention. I contend that He is not aware of other future events as they are contingent on the freedom of His creatures. That future is open and unknowable, even to God.There are cases in the OT that show God to be bargaining with mankind. In the NT we see Jesus praying in Gethsemane to about not having to go into Jerusalem knowing what happened to those who do what He was about to do, so I contend that my view is Biblical.Again IMHO God has chosen to create a world where the future is open, with His creatures having the free will that will form the future. If God has chosen to create a world in which He is unable to know what I will have for lunch next Wednesday then that does not negate the idea that He is omnipotent. (Although I don't think that omnipotent is a particularly useful word in this context.)Edited by GDR, : Badly worded. Memo to self -proof read

What does that have to do with what I am proud of?

Maybe you need to reassess what you're proud of. Bring it up to date.

You claim you are making a choice but since the outcome is known before you make it you are not making the choice, simply doin' the inevitable.See how easy it is for you to lie to yourself?Edited by jar, : appalin spallin

Open Theism makes sense to me. It basically has human decision and Gods interaction as co-creation.

Seems to me "knowledge of the future" is a human concept that isn't really relevant to questions about God's powers. Past, present and future are categories of human experience because we exist in time, but God exists in eternity where there are no such distinctions.The Bible is written to accommodate our limited ability to understand these things, so God is described in human terms wherever possible, but it also points to a transcendent nature beyond our comprehension.His knowledge is an indivisible part of His nature or being, not something he could acquire or could be without. He encompasses everything, nothing escapes Him, not the hairs of our heads, not the falling of a sparrow, not one single thing any of us does now or ever. "In Him we live and move and have our being" [Acts 17:28].The whole question of how His omniscience, omnipotence and omnipresence affect our free will is a clumsy (and in a certain sense also presumptuous) human way of thinking. God's foreknowledge doesn't affect our free will, and our asking the question makes the mistake of putting God on our level, but He doesn't exist on our level. ''ABE: Later: Keep thinking of other scripture verses to add here: Edited by Faith, : move sentenceEdited by Faith, : add reference and quote and fix grammar.Edited by Faith, : added last two quotes

Nicely done, Faith. A short, clear and understandable explanation of your view.It's all BS, of course, but you said it so well and I appreciate the skill.Well put, Lady.