Free will vs Omniscience

And I would argue that true freewill was settled on the plane of the Angelic Realm. (Yes, you can charge it as being made up)
Angels had and have a onetime freewill choice. Humans were designed to have total freedom to choose and re-choose again. Repentance is a gift. Only a fallen angel would properly do things repeatedly that they knew to be properly bad. Humans can become oppressed and arguably even possessed with such tendencies...and I know that you label all so-called demonic oppression as actually and entirely a mental illness, which I will not argue with...I've no real desire to promote Satan. In fact, Mr.Tangle...even though you are an atheist and think no more about angels on the head of a pin than you do hottentots in a bushel of yarn, I would argue that in your Catholic upbringing you got an extra dose of the awareness of God. The fact that you dont even think about it is irrelevant. The only question left on our philosophical table now is the fate of atheists since birth and pagans of other beliefs.You will again ask me rhetorically why my belief is the correct one, and I wont be able to tell you. I do have a scripture for it though: Thus your argument that only a psychopath could kill their Mother is essentially correct in my mind also. The main difference now between you and I is that I think some things are caused by intrinsic evil and willful and continued autonomy which leads to blasphemy of the holy spirit whereas you simply label it all as mental illness.

I have nothing to say about your made up nonsense, it's pointless but I do not. I label it the human condition. Doing wrong is natural, it's part of our evolutionary history. Our propensity to do wrong can be influenced by many things, only one of which is mental illness.

That's a slippery slope for sure. Critics could and do say that the United Sates has been wrong for 100 years, Marshall Plan notwithstanding. Others may argue that our empire and imposition on others was the lesser of two evils.The Charismaniacs predict a one world government that is humanist, good and noble on the outside yet evil at its core (by denying Christ and seeking to replace Him with God knows what) and fair on the surface yet oppressive in actuality. On the other end of the political spectrum we have a scientifically measured global warming crises that will also lead to war\s and competition among nations and peoples unless some sort of consensus towards global cooperation is found. I honestly think that both extremes have common ground.

What is? The fact that doing wrong is natural? There's no slope it's just a truism. Well that's just a pile of sh1te not worthy of comment either. Humanism is not an extreme Phat, it's just part of the developmental process of becoming a grown up society. Once religion disappears from a society, nobody misses it.

We have yet to see the effects on a global scale. And answer me this. Which will be the defining perception of government in such a scenario: Authority or Autonomy? You only get to pick one.

And I might add a second question. If authority is necessary to maintain order, will religion someday be outlawed due to its effect on social order? What would be the possible authority thus represented apart from consensual authority granted by the people upon themselves? Is that not in actuality global autonomy?

They'll be what they are now, variations on liberal democracies.

Of course not, religion will just be a minority irrelevance - as it is now in some modern Western democracies. We really don't care Phat, believe what you like. I have no idea what this means, can you try again?

I want to discuss these ideas more fully after work.
For reference, I am currently reading The Conflict Between Authority and Autonomy by Robert Wolfe, in which he evidently proposes logic behind anarchy.

Not really. Intelligent AI will give an answer to a question. But could give a different answer to the exactly same question at different time or in different environment, if you put those two factors into consideration.God can't even tell whether a particular human being will eventually believe in Him or not.

There is a math describe Chaos.
If a thing follows logic, it has no freedom.
Wait, I take it back. Freedom can be quantitized. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

Changing the time or the environment is changing the inputs, of course! However you feel about your children, you're more likely to go out shopping for Christmas presents on 4 December than on 4 July.But doesn't your god know the future? Doesn't your god know whether or not a each person will choose to believe, and which god they will believe in?

The variables involved in an environment, which combined with the variable of time is nearly infinite, and would be hard to specified. Thus if an AI has to consider those factors, it has to learn from examples, not deterministic principles.
so each AI system may respond differently to exactly the same input because the interpretation could be different.If God give someone free will, then God can not predict what he will choose. So many people decided NOT to believe God, that shows the existence of free will. Edited by Juvenissun, : No reason given.

Way back in this topic, Message 127, ringo and I were arguing about the idea of God knowing whether or not a person would end up on His side or not.
Looking back on the arguments which I made, I have kept one of them: Message 119... and stand by it as an intrinsic part of my belief in Gods foreknowledge, omnipotance, and allowing for evil (for a time) as part of the overall plan.
jar brought up one of his standard arguments regarding Gods responsibility regarding ultimate foreknowledge. Message 118.

quote:

---

But neither of you are asking "What did the God do?" and that is the issue.

​

The God created the human and if that God had foreknowledge that that creation would be damned regardless of whether or not the creation had freewill, then that God is vile and evil.

​

What the person does and whether or not it is done through freewill is totally irrelevant.

​

It is only the acts of the God that are relevant.

---

Lets assume for a moment that my basic belief is correct in that God had foreknowledge of what Lucifer would decide to do and therefore so loved the world that He sent His Son (even before Lucifer chose to rebel) and essentially made an endrun around the devils plot to ensnare humanity through tricking them into willfully accepting the knowledge of good and evil which made them responsible for every good thing and every evil thing which they knowingly chose to do. In this case, God is not responsible for our free will nor on whether we accept Jesus or not(and assuming that to be the antidote for being tricked by Satan)I know that Tangle is simply dismissing all of this religious hoopla, but I might point out that he would follow the hypothetical maths which "prove" that the universe sprang from nothing. He is thus responsible for the belief that he chooses regarding origins, meaning, and destiny.

You have said before that satan is essentially a plot device and is us. If satan were an intrinsic representation of the whole idea of autonomy from the Holy Spirit and if angels were given a onetime decision to accept or reject such a condition, satan would fit well withing a lot of stories of human misery. My question now is:
If God foreknew that Lucifer would choose to rebel and set up a dualistic good/evil paradigm that would impact human decisions and human events during the entire history of humanity on planet earth, would He be responsible for allowing even the possibility for one of his angelic beings to break free from the monistic authority of a loving Oneness God?