Free will vs Omniscience

I didn't say we never do such things.
I said we "don't always" do such things.You said we "always" do such things. This is easily shown to be false, like my 2 apples example. Where am I dismissing information about counting the 2 apples on the table when I count them and my result is 2?You're saying peoples "always" dismiss information.
I'm saying it's possible not to do this, to limit yourself to the evidence, see what the evidence says, and accept the conclusion (or non-conclusion if there's not enough information available for the question you have) and that if you do this, there's always only 1 result.It can happen.
It does happen with counting 2 apples on the table.Therefore, you saying "we always dismiss information..." is incorrect. Correct, that's factual evidence. Yes, these are 2 different interpretations. But are they based on the evidence? They both seem to be based on "importance." You don't mention anything about "importance" in your 2 listed facts. Therefore, "importance" is not based on the evidence... it is extrapolated. It is dishonest to say that this "importance" is based on the evidence for either side.From here, you can go to reality and find evidence that shows "importance" (may require a specified and agreed definition)... or you can accept that going into "importance" is not based on the evidence. No. There is only 1 honest interpretation of the evidence from these 2 facts: there is no conclusion to say that one side or the other is "more important."Anything else is extrapolation, or being dishonest.What you've provided is two "interpretations" that extrapolate the evidence into a third subject: "importance"... but there is no "importance" listed in the evidence.Therefore, both these "interpretations" (again, more "possibilities" at this point) are not based on the evidence. They are based on an extrapolation into "importance."I hope that shows you what I'm trying to explain.
If you still do not understand my point, however, feel free to try again for the fourth time. I am open to being wrong (I won't ever stop you from trying to show that I'm wrong... I'd like to know if I'm wrong, I could update my ideas). But I'm not open to letting you base the "interpretation" on something that is not based on the evidence, and then say that it actually is all, entirely, "based on the evidence."That's either wrong, or being dishonest. Both of which can and should be corrected.

That's why decisions on what "is" evidence are made collectively. One of the most common phrases in the English language is, "Did you see that?" We don't trust ourselves to determine unilaterally what is "evident".

Since you're determined to handwave away anything I present, let me use your example. What if the apples are wax apples instead of real ones? What if they're pears that look like apples? What if there are more than two apples, but from the vantage point of the viewers there appear to be only two? What if they are holograms?Wouldn't it be possible for there to be different interpretations of the "brute facts" in these instances?

Doesn't matter.Still only 1 honest interpretation based on the evidence.The honest interpretation doesn't necessarily have to reflect reality (How can we ever know when we have "the real" reality?). It could certainly be wrong and shown to be so by additional information at any time.
Then, when that additional information gets validated and added to "the evidence"... the resulting 1 honest interpretation based on the evidence is also updated.This is kind of how science works. Are you sure you didn't know this already? No.Unless you think you can prove me wrong?Again, feel free.Explain the evidence.
Explain 2 or more honest interpretations based on the evidence.If some unintentional extrapolations that are not based on the evidence sneak in... don't worry, I'll inform you. I've spent my career identifying "the evidence" and working out solutions that are based on "the evidence." I'm very good at it. Been doing it for almost 2 decades now. Extrapolations are rarely correct when troubleshooting (note: not "always," it's just rare-er)If I say something's extrapolated and you don't think it is... let me know. Like I said, there's only ever 1 honest interpretation. Therefore, if you're right... I'll have to see it or be dishonest myself (or, possibly, too stupid to understand your explanation).But whenever anyone else has ever tried... they always do what you did with your abortion example... think of interpretations that are somewhat-based-on-the-evidence-but-also-include-a-few-details-that-are-extrapolated-but-don't-think-about-those-because-other-parts-are-based-on-the-evidence.But, those are not entirely "based on the evidence."
I agree that if you add other details not based on the evidence... then you can have multiple possibilities.
But if you can restrict yourself to the evidence... I have never, ever seen 2 different honest interpretations that are both entirely based on the evidence.I certainly have not experienced everything though, and a part of me is rooting for you... being proved wrong is the pathway to learning more. And I like to learn more.Feel free to move forward with your 5th attempt to prove me wrong. I'm looking forward to it.

Oh, so you're still pretending this is some kind of serious, fair-minded challenge and not just a crackpot shell game? That's priceless.

So you're not going to try? That's a shame, it might have been interesting.

The bait's a little stale. Best of luck.

That's an unusual collection of words.

What business is it of ours to know what GOD knows?Of course, Open Theism would assert that its no business of GOD what we choose.Does Open Theism make much sense to you?

What we know has nothing to do with whether or not a God that has foreknowledge yet creates beings known to be doomed is evil. Open Theism is just another Carny sideshow, "Come see the Tattooed Lady, the two headed snake and the Man from Borneo". It is certainly less evil than Calvinism but still totally misses the Gospel which is really simple; "Do your best."

Attempting to steer this ship back on topic..... To a degree I agree with this statement. Because i believe that GOD is alive through Jesus Christ,(His human conduit) I will tend to accept certain dreams as personal evidence. Granted i will admit that anything I label as "evidence" is subjective in relation to my personal beliefs. Like I said...my evidence is subjective. I cannot as of yet produce any objective evidence for Gods foreknowledge or whether or not I actually have free will. Others have thoughts on these issues:

quote:

---

...free will does not mean one will, but many wills conflicting in one man. Freedom cannot be conceived simply. ― Flannery O'Connor, Wise Blood

---

quote:

---

If there was no free will in men, then there is no sins. When sins happened, it was 'free will' that made them doable. This is true, unless God has predestined human to do and to have sins. ― Toba Beta

---

quote:

---

I once heard it said that there are two religions in the world: 1) human attainment and 2) Divine accomplishment.

---

So I type "What Is The Gospel into the google search engine. 30+ sights all say that the Gospel is about Divine Accomplishment.Only jar from Texas says its about doing your best.But you probably never cared much for popularity contests anyway.

Are you a bot? That sounds like an early conversation engine.What do you call it when a human fails the Turing test?

Republican.

There was someone else, I think his name was Jesus. It is recorded in a book called the Bible. Maybe you should read it sometime. Shall I go on Phat?Jesus says we should try to feed the hungry, comfort the sorrowful, cloth the naked, teach the children, heal the sick.Granted the version you like is certainly easier and a much easier thing to sell the gullible.